Impacts on specific groups of people

Transport Scotland was keen to gather views on the potential impacts, and mitigation of these impacts, of the interventions on groups with protected characteristics, island communities and across socio-economic disparity. A number of questions focused on this.

Impacts on people with protected characteristics

The first question in this section asked:

The responses people have provided in this section have largely focussed on people’s concerns about how easy or difficult it is for these groups to reduce their car use, and less on how the interventions in the route map will impact on this, bearing in mind that there is no stipulation in the route map for all individuals to reduce their car use by 20%.

As detailed in the table below, a large majority of respondents thought the proposals could have positive or negative impacts on particular groups of people. Only one organisation thought this not to be the case, though nearly one in five responding individuals believed there would be no impacts.

Table 3: Whether the proposals set out in this plan could have positive or negative impacts on any particular groups of people with protected characteristics

Respondents	Yes	No	Don't Know	Not Answered
Business (2)	0	0	0	2
Health / NHS (3)	2	0	0	1
Local authority (13)	11	1	0	1
NDPB (Non-departmental public body) (2)	0	0	0	2
Regional transport partnership (8)	5	0	1	2
Representative body (7)	2	0	1	4
Third sector (other) (7)	2	0	3	2
Third sector (environmental) (8)	4	0	2	2
Third sector (sustainable transport) (9)	6	0	1	2
Other (5)	4	0	1	-
Total organisations (64)	36	1	9	18
Individuals (615)	283	90	135	107
Total respondents	319	91	144	125

Four hundred respondents went on to explain their answer. A majority of these (almost two in three) cited examples of negative impacts, while a large minority (one in three) cited examples of positive impacts. A Small minority (less than one in ten) gave both negative and positive impacts. Slightly more organisations gave examples of positive impacts than negative ones, but more than twice the number of individuals gave negative impacts than positive ones.

Amongst almost all the mentions of positive impacts, an overarching theme was that these positives depend on what the state of public transport will be when the proposals become reality. A significant minority said there will be positive impacts generally if people are able to access a safe, cheap and reliable public transport system or if the active travel infrastructure is sufficient to enhance travel options. Smaller numbers hailed positive impacts for all arising from a healthier, more sustainable environment with less pollution and fewer carbon dioxide emissions, and health benefits arising from increased (active travel) exercise levels.

A significant minority (particularly local authorities and non-disabled third sector organisations) saw positive impacts for disabled people. Respondents said that the proposals allow for disability access support (e.g. well-designed public transport and active travel infrastructure such as places to rest and greater space for wheelchairs) which are positive for disabled people who do not drive or have access to a car, and provide easier use of cars for disabled people who do drive and are car-dependent.

Small minorities of respondents said the proposals will have positive impacts on the following groups:

• Young people and older children: tend to be more flexible with changes, less danger from road vehicles, ease of traveling independently and with better active travel options (will not need to be driven around as much).
• Those on lower incomes or living in area of deprivation: assumed easier options for walking, cycling and buses which are used more frequently by those on lower incomes, and less pollution.
• All who do not drive: as above, with assumed easier options for non-car travel.

A small number of respondents also foresaw benefits for the elderly (less traffic, assumed easier and safer options for non-car travel and health benefits for those able to actively travel), women (assumed safer public transport and greater safety in numbers on active travel routes) and ethnic minorities (perceived as less likely to drive). A very small number of mentions were of benefits to pregnant women, young parents and those on higher incomes – the latter being perceived as being able to afford electric vehicles.

A small minority saw benefits arising from the addressing of inequalities, with a small number seeing benefits to all from perceived intermixing via increased use of public transport and active travel, engendering more community spirit.

The most commonly cited negative impacts were on disabled people, by a large minority of respondents. It is important to note that these generally relate to perceived disbenefits to individuals if they are prevented from driving, rather than disbenefits to individuals that result from an overall reduced level of car use across Scotland. The route map has explicitly set out that there is no intention in its policies to prevent individuals who need to use a private vehicle as a mobility aid from doing so, and that interventions are designed to support and encourage those who have the opportunity to drive less to make that choice. The main themes were:

• Extra expense to move around.
• Inability to easily walk, wheel, cycle or bus, therefore relying on cars.
• Difficulties using public transport (e.g. cars being safer from point of view of Covid or other infection risks, and a lack of space for wheelchairs).
• Not all disabled people have blue badges, further reducing access to key services and parking.

There were suggestions that disabled people need special dispensation or exemption from car restrictions due their potential loss of independence, and that they need assessments to determine the precise impact.

A significant minority perceived negative impacts on the elderly, which mainly reflected the same themes expressed for disabled people. It was also felt that state pensioners may have less money than younger people to compensate for extra travel costs, and that this group may be less capable of doing things online.

A significant minority perceived negative impacts generally or for all groups. Difficulties getting to amenities, a lack of freedom to travel, the lack of choice as some have no alternative to the car, safety issues without a car or on public transport, and increased travel costs and time were all given as reasons for this.

Negative impacts on those on lower incomes or living in areas of deprivation were also perceived by a significant minority, with these groups seen as among the least likely to be able to change behaviour easily. It was felt they would suffer disproportionately in relation to travel costs; they would have less access to the internet; and poorer access to public transport and amenities generally.

People in rural areas were also perceived to be negatively impacted by a significant minority of respondents. Negative impacts included a lack of car alternatives, extra travel costs and penalties being incurred from travelling long distances, as well as weather issues and those on lower incomes being overrepresented in rural areas.

Small minorities of respondents perceived negative impacts on the following:

• Women: safety issues without a car (e.g. issues with car-sharing or car-pooling, security on public transport and lighting at night on active travel routes).
• Pregnant women: as above, as well as the inability to use an active travel option easily or use long bus journeys (lack of toilets) and need of a car if in labour.
• Parents with young families: lack of ease using active travel and having to integrate school drop-offs into working days.

Small numbers of respondents also foresaw negative impacts arising for ethnic minorities (concerns about abuse on public transport), those using a car to transport or care for elderly, disabled and child family members (concerns about being unable to provide assistance), people of faith (problems getting to places of worship), and the young (shrunken employment horizons if unable to travel). Very small numbers cited those with mental health problems; those who are not -IT literate; those who cannot access the internet; single people;, and the LGBT community.

A small number of respondents referred to the need for more information first before determining whether the proposals would have impacts on particular groups. There was specific reference to the Equalities Impact Assessment process that will/is/has been carried out by Transport Scotland as a means of providing this information? This was mentioned by a small number of local authority and third sector / sustainable transport organisations.

There were a small minority who regarded the question as being either not sensible or understandable, or thought the list of protected characteristics had little relevance to the proposals.

The next question went on to ask:

A total of 283 responses were received for this question. Most of these reiterated actions detailed in the previous two questions. The most frequently mentioned measure (by a significant minority including a large minority of organisations) was improvements to public transport in terms of reliability, frequency, accessibility and connectivity (e.g. smart ticketing across modes and more local transport options). Small minorities urged cheaper or free public transport, particularly for the elderly and those on low incomes, and better safety or security on these modes. A similar number requested more public transport facilities for the affected groups; suggestions included spaces for prams and wheelchairs on buses, step-free access, ramps, toilets on buses and anti-discriminatory training for staff.

A significant minority suggested improving facilities for those walking, wheeling and cycling; these included accessible infrastructure for the elderly or disabled people (e.g. for mobility scooters, wide enough gaps for two wheelchairs to pass, or having adapted cycles), cycle tracks, good connections to public transport with cycle transit and storage facility availability, and parent, carer and child equipment (e.g. tag along bikes, bike trailers). There were further suggestions to make active travel for children easier and to encourage women and ethnic minorities to use active travel more. There were also a small minority of calls for better safety for active travel, with a variety of recommendations as follows:

• Reducing or enforcing speed limits.
• Better road and track maintenance.
• Banning cyclists from pavements and cars from pavement parking.
• Segregated lanes and cycle paths.
• More surveillance.
• Open spaces and safe routes around schools.

There were a small number of suggestions that these improvements would benefit women.

Additionally, a few suggestions were made recommending pavement improvements for disabled people and pushchair users including more lighting, dropped kerbs, less street furniture and wider pavements.

Small minorities advocated the following measures:

• Allowing exemptions, separate policies or schemes for certain specified groups; disabled people (increased disabled parking or blue badge spaces, exempt from road pricing if this were to be introduced); those in rural areas; those on lower incomes; families; and carers. A small number of mentions were also made recommending the use of legislation to make sure measures are implemented correctly.
• More consultation or input to the design from the affected groups (e.g. older people, disabled people or their representative organisations, and those in rural areas) to ensure that policies meet their specific requirements. A few comments were made urging that the needs of affected groups are fully funded.
• Measures to make local living easier, by improving local services, making working from home easier, supporting 20 minute neighbourhoods, and providing support to sustain local businesses.

Other recommendations – each from a small number of respondents – were as follows:

• Reiterations of support for e-vehicles; in particular support for those on low incomes to switch to electric vehicles or supporting electric car clubs.
• More call-up buses (also called DRT) , on demand transport options. MaaS services or community transport are seen as offering a high proportion of wheelchair accessible vehicles and door-to-door pick-ups, and therefore used by disabled people, the elderly and those in rural areas. A small number mentioned the use of individualised support such as taxis for disabled people or the elderly.
• More car disincentivisation measures as reiterated previously, helping to minimise air pollution in deprived communities and also benefitting groups with a preponderance of non-car users such as older people, young people, ethnic minorities and disabled people. Small numbers however reiterated views about reductions in car usage being a choice by users, and about providing practical travel options before punishing car use.
• Maintaining non-digital options for the elderly, non-IT literate and those without internet access (or alternatively providing education and support with digital options).

Further points were made by small numbers of respondents about needs for further research and data on impacts, and for more information/promotion about on changes of approaches to travel.

Significant minorities of respondents reiterated their opposition to proposals, urged non-penalisation of car users who had no other options (such as people in rural areas, disabled people, and those needing travel access for employment or health reasons), and reiterated negative impacts on specified groups without providing further details.

Impacts on island communities

The first question in this section asked:

As previously, many of the responses to this question appear to relate to perceived concerns about the impact of any policy changes hindering car travel in rural areas, rather than the proposals in the plan themselves. 

As detailed in the table 4, a large majority of respondents who expressed an opinion thought the proposals could have a particular impact on island communities, though a majority of respondents overall either did not know or did not make a response to the question.

Table 4: Whether the proposals set out in this plan could have a particular impact (positive or negative) on island communities

Respondents	Yes	No	Don't Know	Not Answered
Business (2)	0	0	0	2
Health / NHS (3)	1	0	0	2
Local authority (13)	3	0	9	1
NDPB (Non-departmental public body) (2)	0	0	0	2
Regional transport partnership (8)	3	0	1	4
Representative body (7)	2	0	1	4
Third sector (other) (7)	0	2	3	2
Third sector (environmental) (8)	3	0	2	3
Third sector (sustainable transport) (9)	3	2	2	2
Other (5)	3	0	2	0
Total organisations (64)	18	4	20	22
Individuals (615)	198	42	257	118
Total respondents	216	46	277	140

A large number of respondents (289) went on to explain their answer. A majority of these (almost two in three) cited examples of negative impacts, while only one in five cited examples of positive impacts. Slightly more organisations gave examples of negative impacts than positive impacts, but more than three times the number of individuals gave negative impacts compared to those who provided positive examples.

As in Question 8.1a, almost all comments about positive impacts had the proviso that these very much depended on the implementation of improvements and investments being made to alternative travel options, particularly with regards to public transport (cited by a significant minority). Apart from reiterations of improvements suggested previously, there was a particular request that public transport modes should have better integration with ferries.

Much smaller numbers of respondents suggested other positive impacts on island communities, all with the proviso that there were assumed improvements to the services and amenities mentioned. Each of the following were suggested by a few or small numbers of respondents:

• Better active travel options (e.g. cycling infrastructure, more facilities for multi-mode travel, such as cycle storage on ferries).
• Better local facilities and amenities arising from 20 minute neighbourhoods (e.g. resulting in lower travel expenses needed to get to the mainland, local economy benefits and reduction of pressure on ferries so that there is more space on them for locals).
• Better broadband and internet connectivity could mean more local or home working and a reduced need to travel, helping to maintain island populations.
• Greater ease of living on islands, which may again limit? population losses or encourage more people to live on them.
• Less tourism-related traffic congestion and quieter, more sustainable tourism.
• Environmental benefits from fewer cars (e.g. less of a sea level rise).

There were also a small number of calls for more electric vehicle use, with a very small number of views that the islands could show leadership in green motoring.

A small number of comments noted that impacts would vary depending on the island in question, for instance whether it was reachable by bridge or ferry, or by terrain. For example, a couple of views perceived that Shetland and Orkney have better public transport than many places on the mainland.

A few respondents envisaged no particular different impacts on islands than elsewhere, and two local authorities referred to the Draft Island Communities Impact Assessment.

A small minority of individuals said they could not comment on impacts as they were unfamiliar with the islands; a few of these said there was a need to consult people living on them.

The most frequently mentioned negative impact was that there are none or very few other options to using the car on islands, cited by a significant minority (including a large minority of organisations). Remarks were made indicating that there is more reliance on the car and other motorised transport than elsewhere, and that any car use disincentives would have a very negative impact on living and working in these areas. A significant minority pointed to a lack of public transport alternatives with no trains and few buses servicing the islands. Furthermore, it was suggested that providing extra levels of service to meet the sparse populations’ needs would be more carbon intensive than relying on cars. A small minority perceived that active travel would not be a realistic alternative either, with the weather, distances involved, poor access routes and hilly terrain providing too much of a challenge to most users. Similar numbers cited general concerns that islanders will be hit hard by the proposals, without giving more details.

A significant minority highlighted that travel and transport generally on islands is costly and challenging, with fears expressed that these will increase with higher fuel costs. There were also concerns expressed by a small minority about ferry services; these focused on reliability, the need for replacement ferries, affordability and connectivity with other public transport, with a few worries about the lack of mention of ferries in the consultation.

A significant minority perceived islands as having similar negative impacts to those of any other rural and remote communities, such as those in the Highlands. Nearly as many respondents advocated separate treatment and tailored solutions for these areas due to their unique challenges.

Small numbers of respondents voiced the following additional concerns about negative impacts:

• Concerns about the effects of increased isolation if there are reduced opportunities to travel on the islands (because of less car use).
• Concerns about less car use adversely impacting tourist numbers to islands (as they tend to use cars).
• Concerns about a lack of investment compared with other areas.
• Concerns about a lack of digital connectivity.

A small number of further comments referred to the loss of freedoms, and negative impacts accruing to particular island groups, such as disabled people, the elderly and those on low incomes.

The next question went onto ask:

A total of 218 responses were received at this question. Most of these reiterated actions detailed previously. The most frequently advocated measure (by a significant minority) was again public transport improvements, with a focus on more regular and frequent buses. Further comments desired better public transport connections, links and timetable connectivity and synchronisation, for instance between trains and buses with ferry terminals and sailings. There were also a few calls for cheaper ferries (e.g. discounts or concessionary fares for residents) and cheaper buses.

While not relevant to the route map, the other main request (again from a significant minority) was for ferry improvements, in terms of reliability, frequency of sailings, new ferry provision (in particular better planning of replacements), better access for locals (i.e. reductions in tourist traffic), and improvements to port facilities and carbon footprints.

Small minorities advocated the following other transport-related measures:

• More electric transport and associated infrastructure and support (e.g. small electric buses, charging points, electric vehicle schemes, e-scooters, e-bikes, electric cars, grants, subsidies and incentives), and a very small number of suggestions about using local renewable power production to help subsidise e-vehicle costs.
• Better cycling and walking infrastructure and active travel networks (e.g. better paths, lighting, safety, cycle storage on public transport, cycling initiatives).
• Support for shared mobility and on-demand transport, such as community transport, car sharing, dial-a-bus, ride on request minibuses and post office bus services.
• Action to reduce the use of tourist cars, caravans and other tourism vehicles (e.g. by removing road equivalent tariffs for tourists, introducing a tourist tax for those with cars, or incentivising foot and cycle passengers on ferries).

Other recommendations included greater investment and funding for the islands generally (e.g. to be on a par with that in other areas), more local services and amenities in order to alleviate travel needs to the mainland, more reliable broadband connectivity and cheaper delivery services.

A significant minority reiterated advice to consult with islanders, bearing in mind that the needs of individual islands may differ, and to learn from examples in island communities in other countries. The same proportion urged that islands should have their own particular solution, with some of these pointing out that islands are only a small part of the overall car use problem and that most benefit is therefore gained by applying solutions in urban situations. A small number of respondents mooted that island solutions should be similar to those for rural mainland areas.

A significant minority were in favour of not discriminating against car use for the reasons stated above or leaving the choice up to the islanders to decide. A few respondents noted that it was difficult to fix negative impacts from the proposals, with reasons given such as remoteness, the weather, economic dependence on car tourism and power outages regarding electric vehicle charging.

Impacts on people facing socio-economic disadvantages

The first question in this section asked:

As detailed in table 5, a large majority of respondents who expressed an opinion (around nine in ten respondents) thought the proposals could have a particular impact on people facing socio-economic disadvantages.

Table 5: Whether the proposals set out in this plan could have a particular impact (positive or negative) on people facing socio-economic disadvantages

Respondents	Yes	No	Don't Know	Not Answered
Business (2)	0	0	0	2
Health / NHS (3)	2	0	0	1
Local authority (13)	11	0	1	1
NDPB (Non-departmental public body) (2)	0	0	0	2
Regional transport partnership (8)	5	0	1	2
Representative body (7)	1	0	2	4
Third sector (other) (7)	2	1	2	2
Third sector (environmental) (8)	4	0	1	3
Third sector (sustainable transport) (9)	7	0	1	1
Other (5)	3	0	1	1
Total organisations (64)	35	1	9	19
Individuals (615)	313	41	125	136
Total respondents	348	42	134	155

A large number of respondents (390) went on to explain their answer. Almost equal numbers of respondents cited positive impacts and negative impacts, though slightly higher proportions of organisations envisaged positive impacts than did individuals.

As in previous questions, positive impacts almost all came with the caveat that it was assumed that improvements would be implemented properly to transport and other infrastructure, as per the proposals. The largest numbers – a significant minority – again hailed the benefits of perceived public transport improvements, such as buses and trains being more accessible, frequent, reliable and interlinked. Slightly smaller numbers perceived benefits from more affordable public transport, with free bus passes and concession schemes recommended. Similar numbers saw a positive impact arising from better active travel options, pinpointing their cheapness (especially if there was supported purchase of cycles) and ensuing health benefits.

A significant minority deduced benefits for non-car owners, seen as tending to make up a large proportion of the socio-economically deprived, deriving from easier non-car travel and possibly a reduced travel need if alternatives were available. Smaller numbers saw less need for reliance on private cars, so reducing the costs of ‘forced car ownership’.

Similar numbers saw the proposals as being generally beneficial for reducing inequalities and levelling up society, enabling those facing disadvantages to access more opportunities socially and employment-wise.

Small minorities perceived other possible benefits as follows:

• Less suffering from the effects of air pollution and noise, and reduced pedestrian accidents because of less busy roads.
• Better local services and amenities arising from the advent of 20 minute neighbourhoods, with advantageous knock on effects of reducing travel costs.
• Better and more affordable internet connectivity, with a suggestion to use apps which lay out low cost options.
• Better car sharing options (e.g. car clubs, community cars).

A dominant theme (from a large minority of respondents) emerged amongst those noting negative impacts: the increased difficulty in travelling for many if cars were disincentivised and made more expensive. Concerns were raised about a lack of travel options, particularly for the those living in deprived areas in rural communities. , leading to these people being cut off or isolated from society, work, healthcare and reasonably priced shops. On a related note, a significant minority of respondents noted concerns that public transport could be more expensive and that only the well-off will be able to afford cars, leaving the lower socio-economic groups at a disadvantage. In addition, a small minority of respondents pointed out that non-car transport is more time consuming and unreliable with changes and transfers often needed: there would be negative knock-on effects, such as longer childcare arrangements being needed.

Other negative impacts were perceived by small minorities or small numbers of respondents as follows:

• General problems arising from rising costs (e.g. energy, housing, local shopping), hitting the disadvantaged disproportionately.
• Those on lower incomes or in poorly paid employment being the least able to cope with changes (e.g. tending to work unsocial hours and having the least travel alternatives).
• Electric cars and other vehicles are unaffordable.
• Bicycles are expensive and not always practical (e.g. storage and theft issues).
• Those on lower income or living in areas of derivation are less likely to be able to use online services or able to work at home.

Small numbers of comments foresaw an increase in inequalities due to the proposals amid doubts that there would be enough investment in development of the infrastructure.

A small minority said there would be negative impacts but gave no further details; a few envisaged no particular different impacts for this group as compared to the general population; and a few reiterated opposition to the proposals with a couple of suggestions to fund improvements to disadvantaged areas instead.

The next question went on to ask:

A total of 273 respondents commented at this question. Again, the measures suggested mostly reiterated those put forward at previous questions. The largest numbers (a large minority) put less costly public transport at the top of the agenda, with suggestions including discounts, reductions and bus passes for poorer or vulnerable groups (e.g. those on universal credit), and to try to make public transport use as cheap or cheaper than car use. A significant minority discussed public transport (bus and train) improvements, focusing on serving deprived areas with suggestions to incentivise their use including discounts on leisure facilities and provision of more transport during unsocial hours.

A significant number focused on a need for better walking, wheeling and cycling infrastructure and support for active travel networks (e.g. lanes, paths, lighting and safety as a priority in disadvantaged areas), and especially cycle storage facilities on public transport or at homes, workplaces and other common destinations. Cycling initiatives, help to buy cycles (via grants, loans, etc.), second hand or recycled cycle schemes, free bikes for pupils, free maintenance, maintenance training, support for cycling charities and cargo bikes were all specifically mentioned in this context. A small number voiced support for good public transport connections with active travel routes and modes.

A few respondents were in favour of cheaper electric transport such as cars, cycles and scooters, or wanted to see 20 minute neighbourhoods encouraged to reduce travel. A small minority desired greater investment and funding on infrastructure to be focused on deprived areas. There were also a few calls to ensure affordable living options for those at a greater disadvantage more generally (e.g. more benefits and less housing and energy costs).

The following other specific measures were advocated by small numbers of respondents:

• Cheaper and better internet connectivity, and training for those who need it in accessing online services.
• Bringing in disincentives to discourage car use (e.g. increasing costs on single occupancy use and increased parking costs), with a small number of suggestions to target larger or high end car models, since these tend to be owned by wealthier people and tend to use higher amounts of fossil fuels.
• More promotion of, and education about, alternative travel options.

Referring to comments at earlier questions, there were a small minority who encouraged consulting with those living in areas of social deprivation to take heed of specific issues and barriers. Similar numbers pointed out that there should be separate solutions and measures for those living in deprived communities in rural and island areas, e.g. exemptions from the proposals as these constitute only a small part of the problem.

Smaller numbers wanted all people with disadvantages to be exempted from perceived discrimination against car use regarding those who can’t change easily, perceiving these people would be affected the worst, or to leave choices up to the people to decide. A small minority again reiterated their opposition to the proposals, stating negative impacts generally.

Impact on the environment

Transport Scotland was keen to gather views on the potential impacts and mitigation of these impacts on the environment. The next question asked:

A reduction in greenhouse gas emissions was the key positive impact outlined by a large minority of respondents across all sub-groups. An improvement in air quality and reduced air pollution was identified by a significant minority of respondents across all sub-groups. A smaller proportion noted that the actions proposed in the route map would have a positive impact on the environment but did not specify in which way.

Other positive impacts perceived by smaller numbers of respondents included:

• Less noise pollution.
• Fewer cars on the road and less congestion.
• Positive health impacts and improved wellbeing.
• More open space / green space.
• Fewer collisions involving people or wildlife.
• Improved biodiversity.
• Benefits to local communities and services.

Some respondents made suggestions for ways in which an additional positive impact on the environment could be achieved, most of which reflected actions outlined in the route map. Once again, comments tended to focus on a need to develop a better public transport system that is fully integrated and accessible for all, serving local and national needs. That said, a small number of respondents felt there is no need to focus on reducing car use due to a move to using EVs, although a few others noted that there is still an environmental cost in the production of EVs. There were also a small number of references to the need to consider other technological advances and ensure that these can be adopted by all forms of transport, including trains, buses, ferries and school buses. There were also a small number of comments of the need to reduce the number of tourists using cars and campervans.

Other mentions in line with the route map were for:

• Significant investment to help bring about change.
• Prioritisation of active travel and public transport improvements.
• The need to persuade people to use public transport using positive messaging rather than introducing punitive measures.
• Greater planning for 15 or 20 minute communities and the planning of nice places which offer local services and amenities.

A few respondents felt the introduction of the route map would not reduce carbon emissions, either because of an increased use of public transport options or because reduced carbon levels from reduced car journeys may be offset by increased carbon emissions from alternatives. This could be, for example, through building new infrastructure, such as concreted cycle paths or pedestrian routes.

A small minority of respondents also felt that any approaches adopted within Scotland would have little or no impact when considered in a global context, given the use of fossil fuels by other countries and the negligible levels of emissions created in Scotland. Linked to this, a small minority of respondents felt that the route map will not bring about the necessary behaviour change and reduce car kilometres. There were some references to the need to use cars for essential journeys, such as getting to work or accessing health services, particularly in areas where there is little by way of public transport provision.

A similar number of respondents felt that there is a need to consider the wider context and focus on a range of issues, rather than look at car usage in isolation, all of which impact negatively on the environment. These included the use of plastics, waste management, recycling, packaging, farming, the regeneration of peatlands and housebuilding and planning.

A small minority of respondents commented specifically on the route map, with some feeling that the 20% target lacks ambition and is insufficient to bring about a difference. A similar number requested more detail including impact assessments – even if they were provided as part of the consultation - or queried what evidence has been used in the development of the route map (the evidence used in the route map was set out in the route map annex but some comments suggested this has not been read in conjunction with the route map). Again, there were a small number of comments on the need for targets to be set and measured to gauge success of the route map.

A few respondents also noted the route map is likely to impact more on those on lower incomes and living in areas of socioeconomic deprivation.