Main findings

Views on the behaviour change approach

The consultation paper noted that the car-use behaviours that contribute to overall car kilometres in Scotland show that it will not be possible to reduce car kilometres by 20% by focusing on a single trip type, such as commuting, or a single behaviour, such as switching from car to walking or cycling for short journeys. As such, there is a need for a holistic framework of interventions to provide car-use reduction options for different types of trips in different geographical areas. The Scottish Government has also made use of behaviour change theory and the published evidence base on what works in reducing car use. This has led to the development of a framework of positive sustainable travel behaviours, and the identification of a range of transport and non-transport policies that will support people to adopt one or more of the behaviours. The behaviours were selected because they were applicable in rural and urban settings and allow for a variety of mobility needs. These can be adopted in different geographical locations by people with different personal circumstances and travel needs. The four behaviours are:

• To make use of sustainable online options to reduce the need to travel.
• To choose local destinations or reduce the distance travelled.
• To switch to walking, wheeling, cycling or public transport where possible.
• To combine a trip or share a journey to reduce the number of individual car trips made, if the car remains the only feasible option.

The first consultation question asked:

As detailed in table 2, a majority of respondents agreed with the overall behaviour approach, although a large minority disagreed (325 agreed while 224 disagreed). Agreement was almost unanimous amongst organisations, but amongst individuals nearly as many disagreed as agreed (271 individuals agreed and 223 disagreed). Of those who disagreed with the approach, this was largely due to a disagreement with the target, and no alternative approaches to meeting the target were offered.

Table 2: Agreement with the overall behaviour change approach

Respondent	Agree	Disagree	Don't Know	Not Answered
Business (2)	0	0	0	2
Health / NHS (3)	1	1	0	1
Local authority (13)	13	0	0	0
NDPB (Non-departmental public body) (2)	2	0	0	0
Regional transport partnership (8)	8	0	0	0
Representative body (7)	5	0	0	2
Third sector (other) (7)	5	0	0	2
Third sector (environmental) (8)	7	0	0	1
Third sector (sustainable transport) (9)	9	0	0	0
Other (5)	4	0	1	0
Total organisations (64)	54	1	1	8
Individuals (615)	271	223	38	83
Total respondents	325	224	39	91

A total of 483 respondents went on to comment on the four behaviours. A significant minority overall - including three in four organisations - voiced general agreement and positive comments about the overall behaviour approach in principle, stating they were sensible and feasible, with a few noting health benefits. However, some felt that the 20% target was unambitious. A large minority of comments either pointed to changes that would be required and issues to be resolved before the proposals could work – a number of the changes suggested included interventions that are set out in the route map, or reiterated general disagreement, citing problems and barriers.

The target to reduce car use is a national target and the route map clearly states that there is not an expectation for car use to reduce by the same amount or at the same rate in all geographical areas, or by all individuals. Nevertheless, the most frequent issue raised regarding the overall approach, by a significant minority of respondents, was that of attaining behavioural changes in rural or island areas. Specific problems included a lack of alternative options to using cars, other options taking too long, the distances involved being too lengthy for active travel, and a lack of local facilities and amenities meaning that these areas were unlikely to benefit from 20 minute neighbourhoods. A few respondents advocated separate policies for urban and rural areas, maintaining that the four behaviours were only possible in the former and suggesting that implementing them in urban areas would have the greatest overall effect. A few respondents focused on problems with behavioural change for the disabled or elderly; again, cars were cited by some as the only feasible option for these groups, with barriers to cycling (age or disability) and public transport use (access) mentioned.

Other general changes regarded as being needed in order for the proposals to have a positive effect were each raised by a few respondents; however, the suggested changes are things that the route map already includes:

• A need for infrastructure to address barriers and put alternatives to current behaviour in place first.
• A need for investment.
• A need for cultural or behavioural change (e.g. via education).

Significant numbers of respondents, including a large minority of organisations, thought there was a need to focus on systemic change or a more holistic approach to change as opposed to purely making modifications at an individual behaviour level. A wide variety of mentions were made regarding this, particularly in the planning process in designing towns and cities around people rather than cars. It was also intimated that measures in the proposals should be aimed at other sources of motor vehicle use too, such as businesses, the public sector, schools and the NHS (refer NPF4 interventions in the route map).

Amongst the large minority of respondents who did not view the behavioural change approach favourably, the most frequently mentioned reason was that it was impractical. Likewise, they thought that it failed to reflect the real world, where cars are regarded as being the most convenient means of getting around, and the pace of modern life. These respondents either disagreed with the target to reduce car use or disagreed that the target was achievable without generally suggesting alternative approaches. Other objections – each cited by small numbers of respondents – revolved around dangers from the removal of freedom of movement and individual choice, Scotland’s vehicles only being responsible for a tiny proportion of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, and a belief that the government should focus on other areas of emission reductions, such as targeting commercial vehicles and technology developments to reduce environmental damage.

Reducing the need to travel

Many of those responding to this question focused on negative issues in relation to reducing the need to travel. However, the smaller numbers of positive comments about reducing the need to travel mainly focused on encouraging digital alternatives such as online meetings and encouraging less travel via more working from home, with a suggestion to reward companies offering this. A small number of individuals also indicated that they already reduce their need to travel as much as they can.

Around one in three respondents who commented made observations about reducing the need to travel; the majority of these cited drawbacks and barriers, with small numbers raising each of the following issues:

• Limitations to online options e.g. not everyone can work from home, has fast enough internet connectivity (Though Intervention 1b about extending superfast broadband should be noted in this context), can afford internet or can get cheap online deliveries
• Concerns about digital options working against the viability of local facilities, production and town centres and the local economy, thus working against the ‘Living well locally’ behaviour.
• Queries about whether getting online deliveries is sustainable, due to the use of large transport modes and products coming long distances.
• Stated preferences for face-to-face social interaction rather than online contact to avoid isolation and mental health issues.

Small numbers of respondents perceived digital alternatives as excluding those unable to use technology and those uncomfortable doing so due to integrity or privacy issues. This behavioural change was also perceived to clash with tourism promotion policies for long car trips (e.g. the NC500) with the concern that tourists would be given car preference use over locals.

Living well locally

Less than one in five respondents at this question made specific remarks about living well locally; almost all of these (a significant minority of respondents overall) focused on a current lack of local amenities such as shops, hospitals, doctors, dentists and leisure facilities to enable this behaviour, with consequent requests for support and investment. A few respondents maintained that this behaviour takes place anyway as no one travels further than they have to or that people able to make this change have already done so. Very small numbers suggested that shopping locally may come at a cost to city or town centres and supermarkets, which may lead to food price increases.

Switching modes

This behaviour elicited the most attention from respondents, with two in three commenting on the behavioural change, mainly citing actions required to enable it.

Small numbers of respondents made comments regarding actions to make walking easier, including safer walking routes, bigger pavements, increasing the numbers of crossing points and more pedestrian zones. Drawbacks with walking were also noted, such as the distances being too far and the poor condition of footpaths and pavements. There were only a small number of mentions of wheeling, all of which mirrored the comments made above about walking.

Requests for safer and easier cycling were also made by significant numbers of respondents. These included route segregation, improved networks, cheaper cycle costs and more parking facilities, thereby supporting active travel investment as a route map intervention. Similar numbers drew attention to a variety of perceived difficulties with cycling as an alternative travel mode, including breakdown problems, safety issues (e.g. potholes), bad weather, physical disabilities, not being able to carry loads (e.g. shopping), hilly terrain, limited light availability in winter, affordability of cycles, length of time to complete trips, and the lack of contribution of cyclists to road upkeep.

The most quoted theme from a significant minority of respondents was that there is a need for more public transport availability (i.e. trains and buses), routes and links with more integration of modes needed, with requests for more night services, more options available outside the central belt, and extension of the rail network. Further actions regarding public transport provision, some of which echoed those outlined in the route map, were also made by smaller, but still significant minorities of respondents as follows:

• Investment in public transport infrastructure generally.
• Costs to be reduced, with free bus travel for the under 22s welcomed and current expense compared to use of cars noted.
• Better public transport reliability, regularity, and frequency.

Additionally, a small minority of respondents complained about various facets of bus travel. These included limited or closed services, lack of heating, passenger behaviour, lack of cleanliness, and a lack of maps and other information provision. Points were also made about public transport and other modes taking too long for longer trips.

Other more general requests were made by a small minority for safer, easier and cheaper alternatives to the car. Similar numbers agreed there was too much dependence on car travel, expressing a preference for active travel and / or public transport if these were available.

Disincentives for car use were advocated by a small minority, with suggestions mooted including low traffic zones, bans from city centres, traffic calming measures, living street designs, road user charging, high parking charges (e.g. Workplace Parking Levy, thereby supporting the route map policy) and congestion charging.

A significant minority of individual respondents maintained that their car use was essential, citing instances of having to transport large loads (e.g. shopping), unsocial hours or shift-working, safety reasons and children and families needing to be transported.

The route map explicitly sets out reasons why electric vehicles are not proposed as a solution; however, some respondents disagreed with that approach and a small minority of respondents wished to see more encouragement for electric or hybrid car travel as an alternative, in particular by way of more (and less costly) charging points. A small number of respondents wished to see encouragement of other transport such as electric bikes, motorbikes, e-scooters and powered two-wheelers (PTWs). A small number also advocated other alternatives, such as park and ride options, car clubs and other shared modes of transport.

Combining trips / sharing journeys

A small minority of respondents to this question made comments regarding combining trips or sharing journeys. Almost all dismissed car or vehicle sharing as impractical, saying that they do not live close to their co-workers, that it was not good for combining trips, and that it was inconsistent with being told to stay apart due to COVID. Safety concerns about fellow drivers or passengers and difficulties in planning trips were also mentioned. A small number perceived vehicle sharing as never having worked before, while similar numbers said they already try to combine trips or vehicle share.

Km/miles

Finally, a number of respondents were concerned over some of the phrasing in the consultation (e.g. use of ‘km’ rather than ‘miles’ and the perceived vagueness of ‘where possible’ phrases).

Key opportunities

The next consultation question asked:

Question 2: ‘What are the key opportunities of reducing car kilometres?’

A total of 546 respondents opted to provide commentary in response to this question.

A key opportunity for reducing car kilometres, albeit only cited by a small minority of respondents, was improvement to the environment due to reduced carbon emissions which would also lead to better air quality and less air and noise pollution.

A similar number of respondents referred to improvements in individuals’ health and fitness levels, with some specific references to the health benefits of active travel options such as walking or cycling. Allied to this, there were a small number of comments that this would also have the benefit of reducing the current strain on the NHS. While some respondents focused on health benefits, there were also some references to improvements in wellbeing and happiness as 20 minute neighbourhoods would become nicer to live in, help to reduce social isolation, and bring communities together.

Other opportunities outlined by respondents included:

• Less road accidents because streets would be safer. This would also allow more space for people and play areas for children.
• Reduced congestion on Scotland’s roads.
• More local travel would provide economic benefits to local communities and help build local businesses.

Some respondents identified opportunities for a more radical change to the existing public transport network, with some suggestions for a fully integrated network which links into all forms of public transport and active travel (for example, a hub and spoke system). This would make it easy for a cyclist to use a train or bus for part of their journey. There were a small number of comments on the opportunities to introduce a public transport system that is more flexible and demand-responsive. There were a also a small number of suggestions that the Scottish Government should examine what public transport networks offer in other countries, such as the Netherlands or Denmark, although there were also some references to positive initiatives from TfL (Transport for London).

While the focus for many respondents was on public transport, there were a small number of comments on the opportunities presented by including all road users in the route map and the need to ensure reduced kms across all forms of traffic. TfL’s Direct Vision HGV Standard was cited as an example of a positive initiative.

A small number of respondents identified opportunities for the Scottish Government to show a large-scale educational commitment on the need for increased use of public transport, which would also help to counter the negative views still held by some individuals who have not returned to using public transport because of COVID. As noted by a Regional Transport Partnership, the promotion of positive messages about the wider benefits of a reduction in car kms will be an important element in embedding views about the positives for health, wellbeing and the economy, as well as helping to tackle inequalities and maximising opportunities to bring about the necessary modal shift.

The opportunities for public sector organisations and large businesses to set a good example in reducing the car dominance of their staff was noted by a small number of respondents.

Differences between urban and rural areas were noted by a significant minority of respondents, with references from some that a reduction in car kilometres is much more suited to cities and large towns which already have relatively good public transport networks. As such, some respondents felt that the route map should focus on cities and towns only.

There were also a small number of suggestions that opportunities are offered by specific situations, such as working from home as during COVID, or by focusing on the school run to help reduce the number of short journeys made. Again, it was felt this could be supported by key messages focusing on the health and wellbeing benefits.

While some respondents outlined opportunities of reducing car kilometres, some answered this question by outlining challenges to reducing car kilometres.

A desire to improve public transport and create a viable alternative to car use was the key theme that emerged. This was cited by almost half of those who responded to this question across all sub-groups. Three key factors were outlined by respondents in relation to this issue. First, the current public transport network is seen to be inadequate in terms of service provision, with comments on the need for wider geographical coverage, particularly in rural areas, along with more frequent services. Second, public transport is perceived to be an expensive option in comparison to using a car. Finally, many public transport journeys are seen as inconvenient and too lengthy, with some respondents also referring to a lack of safety and cleanliness on some services. While it is likely that some public transport journeys are made longer due to high levels of congestion from private vehicles, this issue was not raised by respondents. Some of these respondents also noted the importance of improving the current public transport network as an immediate priority in order to persuade some car users to consider public transport as a serious alternative. As one individual observed:

Improved train and bus services with the subsequent infrastructure in place to allow seamless transition from either train or bus onto community electric vehicle assets. Improved public health as a result of improved access to good cycle routes with mandatory changing facilities at workplaces to encourage an active commute.”

Another individual also commented on the cost, cleanliness and facilities available:

Public Transport has to be vastly improved. I live in Glasgow but work in Edinburgh, a 35 minute train between the two would cost me £25 per day which is frankly outrageous. I had to make the journey last week and the cleanliness, reliability and quality fell far short of the extortionate price and the single toilet on the train was out of order - it's honestly quite shocking to see how poor the standards are and how much you have to pay for the privilege.”

Many of those who were receptive to the concept of reducing car kilometres felt it would be difficult to bring about the necessary behavioural change without improvements to public transport.

Linked to the need for an improved public transport system, a small minority of respondents also noted the need for improvements in active travel routes, with references to safe cycling and walking routes, an increased number of cycle paths and an infrastructure that provides safety for all users. There were also calls for improved cycle access on public transport and secure cycle parking facilities. There were a small number of suggestions to reduce the amount of space allocated to cars and use this instead for people walking wheeling and cycling and buses. It was felt by some respondents that improvements in active travel routes would in turn lead to higher levels of cycling, wheeling and walking.

Some respondents identified specific actions – some of which mirrored those set out in the route map – that could be undertaken in order to reduce car kilometres. These included:

• Changes to working practices, such as increased working from home, greater flexibility in working days and hours; for example, working a condensed week.
• Setting up a greater number of car share clubs and promotional campaigns outlining the advantages of belonging to a car club.
• Encouraging the use of e-bikes and e-scooters, alongside some suggestions for funding to help bring this about.
• Increasing the infrastructure for electric vehicles; for example, more charging points across Scotland.

In response to this question specifically, a small minority of respondents felt that car use should be disincentivised. Suggestions to help bring this about included road pricing, banning cars from city centres, the enforcement of speed limits and removal or reduction of parking facilities.

In line with this, a few respondents commented on a perceived disconnect between the need to reduce car kilometres and the promotion of car-based tourism, for example, the North Coast 500. There was a perception that the tourism industry is dependent on car usage, with little by way of a public transport network that is suitable for tourists, particularly in rural and remote areas.

A small number of respondents noted their support for 20 minute neighbourhoods and the creation of communities rather than housing estates with very little facilities, which embed use of the car. There were comments on the need to ensure the availability of local amenities and for new developments to have a suitable infrastructure including shops and access to healthcare to prevent many car journeys. In line with this, there were some comments on local planning decisions, with a few respondents observing that houses should not be built on green belt areas or that there should be a stop to building out of town retail parks. A third sector organisation noted the importance of finalising and adopting NPF4 by the summer of 2022 as well as suggesting that the development and delivery of a National Walking Strategy should be mentioned in the route map.

While most respondents were relatively receptive to the concept of reducing car kilometres, a small minority of respondents commented that this is a bad idea or that drivers should not be disadvantaged. There were some concerns that there would be a negative impact on high streets and city centres with the creation of 20 minute neighbourhoods.

Finally, there were a small number of concerns – primarily from third sector organisations – that implementation of the route map could impact negatively on specific groups of people, such as disabled people, who can be reliant on using private cars.

Key challenges

Having ascertained views on the key opportunities of reducing car kilometres, the next question asked:

A total of 557 respondents opted to provide commentary in response to this question. To an extent, challenges identified by respondents mirrored views expressed at the previous question and many of these echoed issues raised in the route map. The key comment from a significant minority of respondents – across most sub-groups – was the lack of public transport options available. Comments included that the current service provision is unreliable, does not offer a viable alternative to the car, and that there is a lack of connectivity across the existing public transport network, particularly in rural areas. Linked to this, there were some comments on the need for a properly integrated public transport system offering faster and more regular connections, as well as access to other active travel options. That said, an individual noted that time is needed to introduce a programme of modernisation along with the necessary investment to bring this about. There were also some comments on the need to improve other alternatives to car use that are cost and time effective; initiatives cited by respondents included park and ride schemes, e-bus options, secure cycle storage, more space for cycles on trains and improved integration with active travel approaches.

Fewer respondents across most sub-groups, although still a significant minority, referred specifically to the expense of public transport and a lack of available cost effective alternatives. There were some suggestions from a few respondents of a need for investment in public transport and / or subsidies to be offered by the Scottish Government.

Other criticisms of the existing public transport network included:

• Concerns over safety and cleanliness.
• A lack of facilities for disabled people.
• Length and inconvenience of journeys.
• Difficulties accessing public transport in rural areas.

A significant minority of respondents focused on current car usage and the advantages this offers over and above public transport. For some, the car was seen to be more convenient and easier than public transport, with examples given of getting heavy shopping home, visiting family and friends who are a distance away, and getting to work. Again, cars were felt to be more necessary in rural areas.

The car is also perceived by some to be a relatively cheap option compared to other forms of travel, with some respondents providing examples of the cost of various journeys. There were also a few comments that the sunk costs of having a car (e.g. MOT, insurance, etc..) mean that incremental journeys do not appear to cost much, which can help lead to the perception that using a car is cheaper than train and bus services. While both rail and bus services were perceived to be an expensive option in comparison to the cost of car travel, rail was considered to be the more expensive of the two. 

Growth in housing estates and out of town shopping centres are seen to further encourage use of the car, with comments that these are both designed around car use. There were also some comments that many are inaccessible by public transport.

A significant minority of respondents referred specifically to public attitudes towards car usage. There were some observations on the car-centric culture of today where driving is the default for most journeys, and an allied lack of willingness to change this view, particularly when there is a general perception of a lack of alternative options. This is seen to have been brought about by a promoted culture of car use in recent decades, which will be difficult to reverse. Linked to the issue of public attitudes, there were also some comments on the lack of political will to implement the necessary changes and on the power of the car lobby to influence political decisions. A third sector (sustainable transport) organisation commented:

Unsustainable travel behaviours are long-standing and entrenched. These habits and preferences are barriers to behaviour change and may be difficult to overcome for certain population groups – especially those for whom car use remains an affordable, convenient choice due to household income or location. A minority of the population is likely to be vocally opposed to measures which disincentivise car use, from ‘Spaces for People’ changes to road user charging. There will be a need for political will from the Scottish Government, local government and UK Government to drive forward changes which are necessary and will benefit everyone…. At present, alternatives to car use and ownership, from public and community transport to car clubs, often compare unfavourably on affordability. Although the cost of motoring in the UK has increased by over 25% since 2012, the cost of bus travel (58%) and rail travel (30%) have increased even further over the same period. The cost of travel should, ultimately, reflect the Sustainable Transport Hierarchy.”

A number of the suggestions made by respondents mirrored those outlined in the route map. Suggestions that supported the route map included:

• A need to keep roads in a state of good repair in order to encourage cycling.
• To increase and improve upon the availability of active travel options and infrastructure; for example, creating new and segregated routes for cycling, wheeling or walking; albeit some people will be unable to consider active travel alternatives, along with a view that the Scottish weather can inhibit active travel.
• To improve upon the existing public transport infrastructure; for example, better bus shelters or improving accessibility.
• Disincentivising car usage; examples provided included road pricing, a workplace parking levy, reduced parking spaces, higher road taxes. That said, there were some comments on the need to have alternatives in situ before any driver disincentives are introduced. As noted by a third sector organisation:

Addressing this will require system change with long-term planning for positive outcomes and will need both “Carrots” – making doing the right thing easier and “Sticks” – disincentivising car use. Sticks might include vehicle and fuel taxation, road closures, road pricing, parking controls and reduced speed limits. Carrots would encourage alternative travel modes, cheaper, quicker and more reliable public transport, park and ride, car share options, multi-modal ticketing, better walking, wheeling and cycling infrastructure and flexible and home working.”

• Changes in planning policy; for example, designing new developments with local amenities and incorporating active travel infrastructure.
• Encouraging businesses to allow employees to work from home.
• The Scottish Government to work with partners and adopt a holistic approach; to integrate their vision into regional and local transport plans. It was felt by some that there is a current disconnect between a coherent and consistent national policy position and regional implementation.

Other suggestions made by respondents included:

• An increased focus on the use of electric vehicles (EVs), which are perceived to allow the freedom to travel but in a way that is good for the environment. There were also some suggestions for encouraging people to buy EVs and make them more attractive to potential users, for example, in providing preferential parking areas or an increased number of charging stations.
• Adopting other new technologies such as hydrogen cars or e-scooters.
• Educating people via an information campaign about climate change impacts and what is needed to bring about behaviour change, although this would need to be framed in a positive way.
• A need to speed up introduction of the route map in order to reach 2030 targets, with interim targets set and monitored so as to be able to measure success.
• Greater support for organisations that can help promote behaviour change.

There were a small number of concerns over a lack of a business case for bus service providers due to low passenger numbers and that a private deregulated market is inefficient in delivering better public transport. A very small number of respondents noted that public transport should become a public service.

In summarising a number of these issues, a third sector (environment) organisation observed:

With the need to cut 75% of greenhouse gases by 2030, we cannot afford delays. Another challenge we face is that people on lowest incomes often live in areas poorest served by public transport and with least navigable pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. These inequalities in funding allocation need to be addressed immediately before we can expect modal shift. In considering the challenges in achieving this target, we must consider power and vested interests in our current car-dominated system. Many powerful building developers are intent on building large out of town estates with a 1-car-to-1-resident design. These developers are well resourced to overcome planning objections and have an apparent disinterest in sustainability. Likewise, out of town commercial developers, retail parks which decimate high streets, and drive-through coffee shops. Many of these developments in recent years should not have received planning approval, so obviously at odds with local needs, but local authorities are not empowered or resourced to challenge.”

Further actions to support behaviour change

The Scottish Government was keen to obtain details of any further actions respondents would like to see included in the future to support behaviour change. The first of these questions asked:

A total of 479 respondents made comments at this question. Several themes emerged as the main factors involved in reducing the need to travel. The largest numbers of respondents noted their support for actions outlined in the route map and desired more encouragement of, and incentives for, working from home. Suggestions for working from home included allowing staff to continue to work from home post-Covid, employers offering hybrid or flexible working, employer or employee tax incentives or rebates, or a home energy allowance. A small number of respondents also recommended more compressed working, such as a 4-day week. A small minority suggested having easier to reach employer locations, with more consideration given to how location affects the workforce, proposing for employers to locate in densely populated areas rather than out of town industrial parks or to instigate community work hubs.

As in earlier questions, a number of points raised by respondents echoed the route map. These included similar numbers of respondents who advocated investing in more local facilities and amenities nearer homes, such as shops, healthcare facilities, schools, childcare, post offices and distribution hubs, on a general theme of decentralisation. Some of these specifically mentioned 20 minute neighbourhoods. Significant minorities wished to see better planning or changes to the planning system to help enable this with requests not to build housing estates far away from amenities and from public transport hubs, and a small number of mentions urging strong commitment towards this in NPF4. Similar numbers of respondents pinpointed a need for better infrastructure and facilities in rural areas in terms of public transport and broadband, again noting a need to take account of rural and urban differences.

More access to and improvements in high speed internet and broadband were recommended by a significant minority of respondents, including a large minority of organisations. Smaller minorities also urged other digital-related improvements as follows:

• More services to be made available online (e.g. healthcare, education, local ordering and delivery, smart work centres, more local digital hubs, perhaps at libraries or via local work hubs).
• Free or low cost support to help people access the internet, to help reduce digital exclusion (e.g. provision of low cost computer equipment or training to increase digital literacy).
• Reduction of non-climate friendly online deliveries (e.g. last mile delivery by bike, wheel or cargo bike, or taxing long distance suppliers).

Significant numbers of respondents chose to make comments relating to alternative modes of transport to the car. The largest numbers of comments - a significant minority – urged the use of demand management measures to reduce car use. A variety of suggestions were made including an increase in road tax, congestion charging, limitations or increased charging on parking, more low traffic neighbourhoods and LEZs, limitations on school run drop-offs, speed reductions and an excess levy on high mileage motorists. As a third sector respondent put it:

Using sticks as well as carrots to change behaviour is the only way mass modal shift can be achieved. Reducing parking, charging per mile, minimum fuel prices or increased parking charges will end up being necessary to turn this tanker around in the time available.”

Other transport mentions mainly reiterated points made in previous questions:

• Cheaper and more regular, frequent and reliable trains and buses.
• More investment in public transport and more routes and integration of public transport modes.
• Better and safer cycling, wheeling and walking infrastructure.
• Other support for active travel, such as incentives towards cycle purchasing.

A small minority of respondents desired more government advice, education and promotion about the advantages of travel reduction and non-car use (e.g. better health, air quality). Small numbers of mentions were also made suggesting an increase in park and ride facilities, and car sharing or community transport schemes; more focus on motorcycles, scooters and electric vehicle infrastructure; and action to reduce tourist vehicles, such as promoting local tourism.

However, objections to the behavioural change were voiced by a large minority of respondents. These respondents did not address climate change, or offer other ways by which emissions reductions could be achieved. Most mentions stated that it was important for individuals to have the freedom to travel for social, sporting, cultural, leisure and mental health reasons. These respondents said they do not want to be kept at home and do not want to do everything online. Significant numbers of respondents said it was impractical to reduce the need to travel as it was necessary for work, shopping and family reasons, and that no one travels more than they have to. Respondents also reiterated their general disagreement with aspects of the strategy, stating a preference for driving and urging that motorists should not be targeted. There was a small minority who expressed concerns about adverse economic impacts and unintended consequences arising from reducing the need to travel. It was hypothesised that being forced online would detrimentally affect the local economy, reduction in travel would affect the viability of public transport, and delivery vehicles would proliferate on the roads.

Finally, a small minority of respondents said they had no further actions they wished to see included to support reducing the need to travel.

The next question asked:

A total of 469 respondents made comments at this question, many of which supported actions outlined in the route map. Several main themes emerged, with the most quoted one (from a significant minority, including a large minority of organisations) being better provision or investment in local amenities and services. Specific local facilities mentioned included medical, dental, leisure, education, childcare, post offices and toilets. The regeneration of high streets and town centres in general was also advocated, along with calls to stop the centralisation of services. Improvement in terms of the quality of local appearances and experiences was also urged, for example local access to green space. A small minority desired cheaper local shopping options to be available to reduce the need to travel to large supermarkets for cheaper goods. Similar numbers wished for better provision of information or promotion of what local alternatives are available, with examples given of online mapping and signposting of routes to town centres.

A significant minority of respondents wished to see encouragement and support for local businesses and shops (e.g. subsidies for locally produced food, farmers’ markets and local businesses, or cheaper rents and business rates for premises in non-urban areas). A small minority were of the view that a balance was needed with online shopping and commerce, so that it does not negatively affect local economies, with a few arguing for more local or green deliveries from local suppliers.

There was also a wish (from a small minority) to see encouragement for more local work and employment opportunities, for example via outreach hubs and local meeting spaces, along with a small number of requests for increased home or remote working.

The other major theme raised as an enabler for choosing local options was changes to or action regarding the planning system, mentioned by a significant minority, including a large minority of organisations. Specific restrictions and other suggestions included the following:

• No more or fewer developments allowed for out of town retail / cinemas.
• No more drive through fast food outlets.
• No more housing developments without including local amenities / facilities / transport infrastructure (e.g. restore mixed use neighbourhoods).
• Ensure NPF4 / Local Development Plans have sufficient powers to support local options and choices.
• Use 20 minute neighbourhoods in town planning development control.
• Make active travel central to planning.
• Fewer student flat developments in local communities.
• Easier planning regulations for local shops and businesses (e.g. make change of use for buildings easier).

A small minority suggested tax-related actions to help with choosing local options, including with several of the issues raised in points above; taxing online commerce; tax breaks for local or smaller shops; taxing high car usage; council tax reductions for non-car owners; taxing large online retailers heavily; taxing non-sustainable delivery options; a carbon tax on new housing remote from infrastructure’ taxing to disincentivise the use of out of town retail; and taxing land ownership (to discourage out of town shopping centres) were all suggested.

Significant numbers of respondents again focused their remarks on alternative transport options to the car. Comments largely reflected those made at previous questions and included the following:

• More public transport options, including more connectivity and accessibility (e.g. routes, links, integrated transport, stations (buses, trains, park and ride schemes, etc.), and a small number suggesting the use of stations as mobility hubs).
• Free or cheaper public transport.
• More reliable and quicker local public transport.
• Better and safer (local) cycling and wheeling infrastructure (e.g. parking, lanes, storage, segregation from motor vehicles, buses carrying cycles, more routes, weather protection and more use of e-scooters and electric bikes).
• More transport electrification.
• Better and safer walking and wheeling infrastructure (e.g. better and more pavements, more pedestrianisation, paths and pedestrian crossings).
• Help for disabled access to non-car transport.

A significant minority (including a large minority of organisations) suggested car disincentivisation or demand management measures, including the following:

• Parking limitations (e.g. parking charges for edge of town shopping malls and better inconsiderate or illegal parking enforcement).
• Reallocation of road space away from cars (e.g. removal of traffic from high streets, instigation of low traffic neighbourhoods or low emissions zones, school run restrictions).
• Speed limit enforcement.
• Congestion charging.

Other changes and actions were each suggested by small numbers of respondents as follows:

• Changes to local government (e.g. less cuts, or more devolved powers to assist areas to develop solutions fitting their particular needs).
• Changes in tourism focus (e.g. no longer promoting the NC500, promoting local tourism, promoting tourism and leisure trips by public transport and discouraging inappropriate parking).
• More community consultation or involvement of communities in decision-making.
• More acknowledgement of urban and rural differences (e.g. 20 minute neighbourhoods may not be possible in rural areas, and different plans or interventions may be needed between different localities).

A small number of respondents saw a need for more research (e.g. into household decision-making, motivators and habits, and on the time and money required to develop local options and trials of solutions) before moving forward. A very small number of suggestions advocated promotion of, or support for, the Place Standard Tool.

A significant minority of respondents disagreed with the behaviour change, mainly citing the impracticality of living locally due to a lack of local options, for instance with regard to large scale shopping, employment (a small number of respondents cited a lack of housing affordability near workplaces), schools, culture and sport. A small number of respondents disagreed with local living, citing freedom of choice or reiterated their opposition to aspects of the strategy as a whole.

Finally, a small number of respondents said that no further actions were necessary or that the proposal was fine as it stands.

The next question asked:

A total of 509 respondents made comments at this question. The theme with most responses (by a large minority of respondents which included a majority of organisations) was action on better and safer cycling, walking, and wheeling infrastructure and active travel routes. Various facets to this were advocated including the following:

• More networks, dedicated paths and active travel routes away from roads.
• Safer roads (e.g. dedicated lanes, better awareness from lorry / car drivers).
• Hiring and sharing schemes for cycles.
• Secure cycle storage facilities.
• Provision for cargo bikes.
• Money off schemes for those wishing to acquire cycles (e.g. cash / subsidies / vouchers / VAT removal).
• Better or more cycle transportation facilities on buses / trains.
• Cycle training at schools.
• Bike buses to schools.
• Better road maintenance (e.g. fixing potholes to make cycling safer and save on repair costs).
• Improving the traffic and road orders system or the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process for active travel schemes (e.g. compulsory purchasing or not getting diverted by spurious objections).

A small minority of respondents urged more support for the use of electric bikes, with suggestions for schemes to make these more affordable, using e-cargo bikes for last mile deliveries and allowing speeds of up to 20 mph. Similar numbers desired support for the use of other powered two-wheelers (PTWs), such as mopeds, motorbikes, and e-scooters, citing their usefulness in terms of working in rural communities, causing less congestion, and being good for travel ranges beyond cycling.

Drawbacks with cycling as a travel method were however raised by a small minority. Specific issues perceived were inclement weather; being an unsafe transport mode in winter; commuting issues (distance involved and the need for a shower after arrival); not being a useful mode for shopping or the elderly; cycle security problems; the behaviour of fast cyclists; and the lack of funds raised from cyclists by way of road tax or insurance.

A significant minority of respondents (including a large minority of organisations) were in favour of encouraging walking and wheeling with better and safer pedestrian infrastructure. Specific mentions were made about improving paths, providing better lighting, having more crossing junctions and reward schemes for walking.

A small minority wanted to see more information and promotions about switching to sustainable travel options, such as public campaigns, maps, signage, cycle events and walking groups.

The other major theme discussed by respondents was public transport provision, particularly relating to buses and trains (with occasional mentions of Edinburgh’s trams and Glasgow’s underground system). The greatest numbers of these - a significant minority of respondents, including a large minority of organisations – expressed a desire for cheaper or free public transport. There was a wish to make costs comparable to the cost of car travel. Suggestions as to how to bring this about included a desire for more railcards, subsidies and discounts. More specifically there were requests to eliminate peak hours fares, expressions of support for the on-going Fair Fares review undertaken by Transport Scotland to consider both the availability of services and the range of discounts and concessionary schemes which are available on all modes including bus, rail and ferry, and positive comments about free bus travel for the under 22s.

Nearly as many comments were received which advocated better public transport links, routes and accessibility, and connectivity between bus, train, tram and underground modes. There were requests for more stations or stops, with a very small number of mentions of the success of the Borders railway line. Likewise, respondents argued for better links with active travel routes and the introduction of smart ticketing for use across all companies and types of transport.

A significant minority expressed a desire for more reliable, frequent and quicker public transport, in part to help make journey times closer to those for using the car. Suggestions included more night services, more segregation of bus lanes, and more bus priority on roads. Slightly smaller numbers (but a large minority of organisations) were in favour of more investment in public transport infrastructure in terms of modernisation, with a small number of suggestions to renationalise this.

Other public transport improvements were suggested, again by a significant minority. These included making public transport safer, cleaner (e.g. to overcome Covid concerns), more spacious, comfortable (e.g. more bus shelters), reducing fare dodging, reducing anti-social behaviour, using greener fuels, electrification of rail and more electric buses.

A significant number of respondents focused on a need for improved rural transport options or infrastructure. There were references to the difficulties involved in offering rural alternatives to the car and the perceived inequities of accessing funding streams. A representative body stated that rural Scotland sees only a fraction of the concessionary travel budget (such as the under 22s bus pass), which is mostly used for urban areas.

A small number of respondents each made the following other mentions about sustainable travel modes:

• Requests for more community transport (such as dial-a-bus) and community-driven transport solutions, with suggestions that these forms should be more prominent in the provision of health and social care-related transport.
• Adjusting the tourism and visitor focus to slower and less rushed holidaying or removing advertising of road trips such as the NC500.
• Provision of more park and ride facilities.
• More workplace sustainable transport schemes.
• Tax actions to promote sustainable transport use (e.g. increasing fuel tax or road tax).
• More heed to be taken of provision for disabled people and the elderly (e.g. those who find it difficult to use active travel options or tend to be dependent on cars) with suggestions of better wheelchair access, dropped kerbs and adapted cycles.

There were also a small number of queries as to the meaning of ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable modes’, and what modes qualify.

A small minority of respondents thought there should be a focus on more electric cars or electric vehicle use, with suggestions for switching being aided by financial help for purchasing, more affordability, incentives, hire schemes or zero VAT. Similar numbers made a case for better or more electric vehicle infrastructure (in particular more charging points, improved servicing expertise, using batteries for storage and paying a feed out tariff, and grants to home owners for EV charging installation). However, similar numbers again were against electric vehicles, citing their unaffordability, environmental costliness (via lithium mining and battery disposal issues), fears of running out of charge and many perceived ‘don’t do’s’ in relation to battery care. A small number of individual respondents hailed hydrogen-powered vehicles as a better possible long term solution.

A small minority of respondents were of the opinion that the government and politicians should take the lead or show the way by example (e.g. councils, the Scottish Government and public servants) by using alternative sustainable travel modes rather than, for example, fleet cars or planes. It was also perceived that councils do not access much of the active travel funding, and that there is a need for long term planning, albeit with a need to deliver planned measures with more speed. There was also a suggestion from a third sector (environment) respondent to use new powers in the Transport Act to start new municipal bus operators.

Car disincentives were seen as part of the solution for take up of sustainable transport modes by a significant minority of respondents, including a large minority of organisations. Forms this could take were suggested, including financial disincentives in the form of more tax on SUVs; congestion charging; road mileage pricing; and the Workplace Parking Levy. There were also references to traffic regulations such as enforcing speed limits; more 20 mph zones; restricting car lanes; restrictions to city centre parking; the enforcement of no pavement parking; Low Traffic Neighbourhoods; and Low Emissions Zones. Other suggestions made included compensation for car owners to dispose of cars; restricting school car runs; and limiting road construction. A few respondents voiced opposition to anti-car measures, saying that traffic congestion caused by cycle lanes caused more pollution; extra parking charges would reduce city centre or high street footfall; and there would be general complaints about loss of freedoms and impracticalities.

Finally, there were a small number of calls for better transport planning around new housing and other developments, support for car sharing, and small numbers of reiterations of opposition to the proposals.

The next question asked:

A total of 402 respondents made comments at this question. There was one predominant theme cited by a large minority, almost all of whom were individual respondents, who took the view that car sharing was impractical and unrealistic, the main concern being Covid transmission risk?. The following variety of reasons were also given:

• Driving would be necessary to meet up.
• Insurance issues (e.g. liability questions in the case of accidents, car sharing not being a standard part of policies).
• Safety issues with strangers.
• Safety considerations for women and children.
• Lack of feasibility in rural or remote areas (not enough critical mass).
• Lack of spare car space (e.g. due to large families).
• Work routines failing to synchronise.
• Difficulties finding people who want to go to the same place at the same time.
• Practical difficulties for those with disabilities.

Significant minorities of mainly individual respondents were opposed to car sharing for other reasons, in particular that it still encourages car use and ownership and that priority actions should be geared towards the first three behaviours (making use of sustainable online options to reduce the need to travel; choosing local destinations or reducing the distance travelled; and switching to walking, wheeling, cycling or public transport where possible) which will have the greatest effects. Other reasons given were that car sharing had been tried before without success and a wish to maintain personal space.

A significant minority (including a large minority of organisations) reiterated that it would be better to prioritise improvements to public transport, in terms of cost, reliability, coverage and integration, with a small number commenting that shared journeys are best done by enabling facets of public transport provision such as universal ticketing.

Other priorities to car sharing were also reiterated by a small minority of respondents, largely reflecting opinions voiced at the previous questions. These included prioritising active travel and integrating linkage with public transport; introducing more anti-car measures; and supporting home working.

However, small minorities, particularly amongst organisations, each urged actions to encourage more car sharing. These included the following:

• Offering incentives for car sharing (e.g. reducing vehicle charges for multiple occupants, fuel rebates or discounts, reduced parking charges, tax reliefs or reductions, instigating car pool lanes or enabling use of bus lanes, workplace incentives, shared road charging, discounts on congestion charges, incentives linked to local businesses / employers (eg priority parking), and encouragement for taxi sharing.
• Use of online technology, apps (e.g. similar to Uber), web portals or booking systems to enable car sharing and other transport options (e.g. Mitfahrzentrale in Germany, BlaBlaCar in Spain, the Liftshare portal or a local facebook page) with secure systems (e.g. people screening, ID vetting), and allowing postings of journey details.
• More publicity and promotion of, and guidance about, car sharing.
• Offering further car sharing options (e.g. car-pooling initiatives, involving businesses and employers, for instance to offer hours that synchronise for employee sharing).
• Prioritising car sharing in certain scenarios by using natural groupings (e.g. hospitals or company settings where employees’ work patterns synchronise or where it is possible to plan ahead, or in rural areas).
• Introducing measures against solo drivers (e.g. extra charges, an increase in parking charges (for instance at workplaces), and a reduction in the number of lanes they can drive in).

There were also a small minority of respondents who stated that they already car share where practical or operate a car sharing scheme. Additionally, there were positive comments about car share schemes helping to strengthen community connections at a local level, being an option for those who cannot cycle, and helping to reduce car ownership. There were also some comments that car or lift sharing is easier to do if arranged informally amongst family and friends rather than with strangers. Mobility hubs were seen as a possible aid to expanding car sharing, in the forms of parking locations, laybys and grocery pick up points as well as providing a location where different travel options including walking, cycling, car, bus, etc. come together. This can ensure that the last mile of a journey can be met with alternative shared options and help move people away from their reliance on private vehicle use.

Support for expansion of car club schemes was expressed by a small minority, particularly organisations. More affordability and encouragement of siting these in suburban areas were recommended, along with enabling pick up and drop off at different locations and making them accessible to disabled people. Other positive comments were received from respondents, in particular in relation to helping reduce car ownership and members tending to only using car club cars when necessary. Examples were given including CoWheels and the Green Mobility model in Europe.

Electric vehicle sharing schemes (e.g. for car clubs or e-bikes) were recommended by a small number of respondents.

A small minority of respondents saw value in the opportunities provided by Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) and Mobility as a Service (MaaS). Suggestions were made to use digital Apps such as for dial-a-bus and dial-a-taxi scenarios. Suggested situations where DRT and MaaS could help included rural areas, organised supermarket visits, and community and staff transport, as well as in areas where bus routes are not commercially viable.

Only a small number of comments made referenced combining journeys; these all simply stated that people combine trips anyway wherever possible (e.g. the school run with commuting).

A small minority of respondents did not see any additional actions as being necessary to support this behaviour change; slightly smaller numbers reiterated their general opposition to the strategy or various aspects of it.