Views on specific policies within the route map

The final question in this part of the consultation asked:

A total of 340 respondents made comments at this question, although many of the comments made did not refer to the specific policies set out in the route map. Responses were very diffuse with many different themes taken up by relatively small numbers of respondents; most of these respondents repeated views stated in earlier questions. The largest proportions – significant minorities – firstly commented on the need to make public transport accessible, affordable and more integrated in terms of ease of switching between modes, and secondly foresaw a need to take account of the different situations and requirements of people living in rural areas. For the latter, the main train of thought was that it was not practical for the stated policies to work in rural areas, due to: a lack of alternatives to car use, in particular a lack of fast digital connectivity; a lack of public transport; and a lack of amenities for a 20 minute neighbourhood (though these are catered for as part of the Route Map).

A smaller but still significant number of respondents (including a large minority of organisations) saw a need for investment in cycling and active travel infrastructure in terms of safer routes and parking and storage of cycles, with a small number of criticisms about a lack of specificity regarding these in the route map. A small number recommended better road maintenance and road improvements to help improve active travel, reduce fuel usage for motorised transport and improve safety generally.

Smaller minorities of respondents (though a large minority of organisations) voiced generally supportive comments for the route map, welcoming the constituent policies with some mentions of these already being delivered and linking well to other policy areas. There were also a few mentions of insufficient urgency being shown to meet the 2030 timescale or to stop climate change, and of the proposals having insufficient ambition (e.g. 20% reduction in emissions not being enough to combat air and noise pollution or carbon dioxide emissions, or more measures being needed to achieve a 20% reduction).

A small minority of respondents advocated that there should be a focus on building sustainable and workable options and infrastructure as per the Route Map interventions with these being attractive, cheap and practical.

There were some concerns raised about action areas not given sufficient coverage in the route map, where respondents felt they should be more in focus. Small numbers of respondents each pinpointed the following:

• Concerns about a lack of specificity or emphasis in the route map for demand management measures.
• Queries about the lack of mention of a role for electric vehicles, for instance regarding e-scooters, electric buses and cars, e-bikes, and train electrification; albeit with a small number of comments concerned about their expense, charging facilities and environmental impacts incurred in production and wastage.
• Queries about the lack of mentions for other transport modes (e.g. motorcycles, mobility scooters, LPG vehicles).
• Concerns about the whole focus being on private individuals and the public (e.g. a lack of business usage policies such as putting goods transportation onto rail, or funding businesses for pool bikes or cargo bikes), with further worries that the consequence of fewer individual car trips may create an increase in commercial traffic, such as that needed for home deliveries.
• A need to introduce actions to mitigate tourism impacts (e.g. through car use and aviation, with suggestions for the route map to interlink with VisitScotland’s Destination Net Zero initiative or promotion of ‘slow tourism’).
• A need to focus on actions to disincentivise the use of larger vehicles, such as SUVs and pick-ups, which use more fuel and pollute more, rather than smaller cars.

In addition, there was a small minority of calls for specific car disincentivisation measures (i.e. to use a stick, as well as a carrot). These reiterated ideas mentioned previously, such as congestion charging, reduced access to city centres, increased parking charges, more speed bumps and further introductions of low emission zones. There were also a small number of comments welcoming 20 mph speed limits where appropriate and where properly enforced. Similar numbers however opposed what they viewed as excessive punishment of petrol and diesel car owners with several reiterating that there was a lack of practical alternatives.

The following concerns about certain aspects of the route map were made, each by small numbers of respondents:

• Concerns about sufficient funding being available for proper implementation, with remarks about a need for massive public sector investment and work needed regarding the overall funding patterns required to achieve the desired outcomes.
• Concerns about disabled people and the elderly being able to meet policies (despite the route map clearly stating that the target is a national one, and recognises that not all individuals will be able to reduce their car use to the same extent), with remarks about these groups carrying an unfair burden, being unable or less able to travel by active modes and having cars as their only practical option. There were calls to involve disabled people in developing the plan or being offered exemptions.
• Concerns about the detrimental impact on, or lack of account taken of those in poverty or with limited incomes, in terms of potential unaffordability of cars with less ability to make use of alternatives (e.g. those in lower paid employment may not have the option of home working,; and may work less sociable hours making public transport less of an option). There were calls for these groups to be financially supported through the transition.

A small number of respondents thought the proposals were not specific enough, calling for more information on their delivery and a firmer commitment to more targets and dates. Similar numbers felt that the route map needs to be more joined up with other transport and health policies.

Other comments were also made by small numbers of respondents as follows:

• Education around climate change in order to change behaviour is key, with particular emphasis on children. For instance, the Eco Schools Scotland Programme as part of the Learning for Sustainability Programme was welcomed.
• There is a need to keep monitoring, researching, analysing and evaluating policy progress to see if the desired impacts are achieved, with a consistent approach needed nationally. For instance, use of the Scottish Household Survey to get robust data on travel behaviours was recommended by a local authority.
• There is a need for local solutions to local problems, with comments that there is no one size fits all solution. Suggestions included a need for action from individual local authorities and only targeting the route map at those most able to adapt.

Small numbers of other comments mentioned a need to learn or copy from overseas success stories, such as those in Dutch cities, and stronger policies needed around schools, such as no parking and clean air zones. Points were also made about Scotland’s weather and climate reducing the feasibility of active travel (and public transport in winter) and concerns were raised about revenue losses from reduced amounts of vehicle and fuel tax.

Finally, a significant minority consisting almost entirely of individual respondents reiterated their opposition to the policies, citing their impracticality and unworkability, objecting to the perceived curtailment of freedoms.