Search

With governments around the world committed to radically reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and transport-related mobilities making up a significant proportion of current carbon emissions, questions of how to change mobility systems have become a pressing concern. Yet the urgency of this challenge cannot be met with more of the same – particularly in terms of narrow discussions of behaviour change that fail to draw upon the wealth of relevant social scientific research. New methods of collaborating and bringing together communities – whether policymakers, academics, or publics – will also be key. Greg Marsden brings a particularly interesting set of perspectives to the question of what future travel demand might look like, and how we can change practices to get there. While currently a Professor of Transport Governance at Leeds University, Greg has spent significant periods working with policymakers – both within Transport for London and supporting the UK Parliament Transport Select Committee, which scrutinises the UK Department for Transport's (DfT) spending and policies. Our conversation looks at how spaces can be fostered for new ways of thinking, communicating and collaborating to address the challenge of rapidly decarbonising transport systems. Though largely focused upon the UK, the conversation highlights issues related to policy engagement, theory and evidence, and understandings of sharing that will have much wider relevance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Transport planning assumptions about housing, employment and transport are outdated. • Precarity in housing and employment systems often mean people have to move. • Uncertainty about when move influences decisions on accessibility and transport. • Implications for sustainable mobility, urban development and social welfare. The importance of the nexus between transport, housing location and employment location has long been identified as important to social welfare. In transport research this has however operated largely at either end of the spectrum of advantage. There exists a strong tradition, with roots in welfare economics, which explores those with choices and how they make trade-offs between where to live and work, the associated wage rate and the commute costs. At the other end is work which recognises the social costs for those that do not have access to transport and struggle to participate in employment. This paper focuses its attention on households that fall between these extremes and for whom the choice/no-choice dichotomy does not work. Through in-depth interviews with 46 people in the UK we find that the interactions between the location and, critically, security of both housing and employment plays a critical role in shaping what 'choices' exist. In particular, the findings explain why some households own cars although, on other metrics, they would not be expected to find ownership affordable, and how the security of housing tenure shapes long-term household trajectories. The literature on planning and travel behaviour has paid little or no attention to the security of housing and employment. This study suggests the importance of addressing this gap and refocussing attention on the different ways in which transport connects to wider planning and social policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Future travel demand has always been difficult to estimate. Recent trends of a slow down or stagnation in traffic growth combined with substantial demographic, economic, and technological shifts further complicate that task. This poses a significant planning challenge given that decision-making is often based on the benefits of infrastructure investments which accrue over periods as long as 60 years. In contrast to the changing ideas around what mobility in the future will look like and the types of demand it may need to service, the practice of forecasting future travel demand remains largely unchanged as do the decision-making processes which flow from this. Alternative approaches to thinking about futures such as scenario planning exist but have had more limited deployment in the transport sector. This paper explores the institutional issues surrounding the purpose, practice and barriers to changing the approaches of forecasting and decision-making through an exploration of the state of practice in the UK drawing on interviews with 23 practitioners. Drawing on Hall's work on policy change, the research finds that there is a strong policy paradigm built around the relationships between transport investment and traffic growth. This has strengthened since the recession with an increased focus on the relationship between transport and job creation. The forecasting approaches in use today are an important part of a complex decision-making apparatus reflective of specialized policy arenas like transport. Challenges in acknowledging, representing and communicating uncertainty are identified leaving a growing tension between planning visions and planning practice. We conclude by reflecting on events which may stimulate a broader reframing of how we plan for transport futures whilst embracing key uncertainties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper addresses the important question of how institutional structures matter to the delivery of climate change policy for urban transport. It examines the strategic goals, policy tools in operation and initial progress towards carbon emission reduction in seven cities across the UK and Germany where different institutional structures exist. The UK has the presence of a strong national carbon target and strong hierarchical national–local government relationships whilst Germany has a more integrated system of local transport provision in a context where local and regional government is stronger. Our findings show that the carbon agenda has made very little difference to what is happening on the ground in the cities. Across all sites, progress is being made but largely through technological improvements which are being almost completely offset by population growth. Even in the more integrated city environments there has not be an additional stimulus to manage the demand for travel. Contrary to previous research therefore, we cannot conclude that institutional structures are paramount in delivering effective carbon reduction policies. The institutional structures in the UK and in Germany are not perfectly aligned to carbon management but, given the cross policy impacts of most transport interventions, this is perhaps inevitable. We can clearly conclude however that “better” structures are not sufficient to achieve the implementation of more effective carbon policies. Whilst institutional structures must matter, it is the broader governance environment and the resources and politics involved in transport policy that currently seem to dominate the importance of the carbon agenda and implementation paths that emerge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper seeks to understand how the UK government's headline climate change targets are translated into action at the local level in the transport sector drawing on the findings of research in two English regions. In doing so, these headline targets are identified as a symbolic meta-policy that results in little action on the ground and which challenges established conceptions of policy implementation. Both the 'meta' and 'symbolic' aspects of the policy offer part of the explanation for the lack of substantive action on the ground. As a meta-policy, the headline targets across government require the elaboration of other policies at other levels such as targets for government departments and local authorities, but these are largely absent, leaving the meta-policy without teeth. Over time, these headline targets have developed into a symbolic policy, serving political goals but having little practical effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The scale of the decarbonisation challenge and the short timeframes over which action is required demand urgent action. This paper is set within the surface transport sector, now the largest sector of emissions with the slowest pace of change in many advanced liberal economies. It focuses on the strategies and actions of local government which is recognised to be a central player in catalysing change. Our evidence is derived from the actions of two UK local areas which claim to be at the forefront of the decarbonisation challenge. The paper focuses on the role of funding and financial mechanisms in addressing the climate crisis. In the face of an established pattern of austerity and hollowing out of local government we explore how deep transformation is being envisaged. We find a recursive set of issues which derive from a dependence on funding from outwith. This dependence means that despite comprehensive overarching strategies and goals the funding available is the core of the strategy. This means that the nature of the funds, such as the requirement for experimentation, innovation or private sector leverage, defines direction. In turn, and to maintain success in attracting funds, there is an emphasis on presenting 'premium spaces of ambition' with little evidence of attention to broader systemic change. This duality is openly recognised. This paper advances a wider point that greater emphasis should be placed on the 'financialisation' of climate policy and the reality rather than the rhetoric of change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The notion of ‘fuel poverty’, referring to affordable warmth, underpins established research and policy agendas in the UK and has been extremely influential worldwide. In this context, British researchers, official policymaking bodies and NGOs have put forward the notion of ‘transport poverty’, building on an implicit analogy between (recognised) fuel poverty and (neglected) transport affordability issues. However, the conceptual similarities and differences between ’fuel’ and ’transport’ poverty remain largely unaddressed in the UK. This paper systematically compares and contrasts the two concepts, examining critically the assumption of a simple equivalence between them. We illustrate similarities and differences under four headings: (i) negative consequences of lack of warmth and lack of access; (ii) drivers of fuel and transport poverty; (iii) definition and measurement; (iv) policy interventions. Our review suggests that there are important conceptual and practical differences between transport and domestic energy consumption, with crucial consequences for how affordability problems amongst households are to be conceptualised and addressed. In a context where transport and energy exhibit two parallel policy worlds, the analysis in the paper and these conclusions reinforce how and why these differences matter. As we embark on an ever closer union between our domestic energy and transport energy systems the importance of these contradictions will become increasingly evident and problematic. This work contributes to the long-term debate about how best to manage these issues in a radical energy transition that properly pays attention to issues of equity and affordability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The notion of ‘fuel poverty’, referring to affordable warmth, underpins established research and policy agendas in the UK and has been extremely influential worldwide. In this context, British researchers, official policymaking bodies and NGOs have put forward the notion of ‘transport poverty’, building on an implicit analogy between (recognised) fuel poverty and (neglected) transport affordability issues. However, the conceptual similarities and differences between 'fuel' and 'transport' poverty remain largely unaddressed in the UK. This paper systematically compares and contrasts the two concepts, examining critically the assumption of a simple equivalence between them. We illustrate similarities and differences under four headings: (i) negative consequences of lack of warmth and lack of access; (ii) drivers of fuel and transport poverty; (iii) definition and measurement; (iv) policy interventions. Our review suggests that there are important conceptual and practical differences between transport and domestic energy consumption, with crucial consequences for how affordability problems amongst households are to be conceptualised and addressed. In a context where transport and energy exhibit two parallel policy worlds, the analysis in the paper and these conclusions reinforce how and why these differences matter. As we embark on an ever closer union between our domestic energy and transport energy systems the importance of these contradictions will become increasingly evident and problematic. This work contributes to the long-term debate about how best to manage these issues in a radical energy transition that properly pays attention to issues of equity and affordability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]