Search

Since the 1960s, development of the transport system has been framed by the notion of forecasting future demand. Yet the past decade or more appears to signal some significant changes to the role of travel in society which are having a material impact on how much people travel (and may travel in the future). Coupled with the potential for major technological changes and a range of climate adaptation scenarios, the future of mobility presents today's decision making on transport strategy and investment with a broader set of uncertainties than has previously been considered. This paper examines current mainstream practice for incorporating uncertainty into decision-making, through an illustrative case study of the highly codified approaches of the Department for Transport in England. It deconstructs the issue by first focussing on different ways in which there is an opening out or acceptance of new uncertainties and how this creates a (wider) set of potential futures. It then turns to consider how this set of futures is used, or not, in decision-making, i.e. the process of closing down uncertainty to arrive at or at least inform a decision. We demonstrate that, because the range of uncertainties has broadened in scope and scale, the traditional technocratic approach of closing down decisions through sensitivity testing is at odds with the greater breadth now being called for at the opening out stage. We conclude that transport decision-making would benefit from a rebalancing of technical depth with analytical breadth. The paper outlines a plausible new approach to opening out and closing down that is starting to be applied in practice. This approach must be accompanied by an opening up of the processes by which technical advice for decisions are reached and how uncertainties are understood and negotiated. [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 UK Climate Change Act 2008 commits to a reduction of 80% in national GHG emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. This article explores what happens next where these top-level aspirations are expected to be turned into radical action. It does so through examination of the transport sector, which is a highly complex, fragmented, and multi-level delivery environment. The research draws on cases studies of four major cities with different governance structures within the two distinct, yet connected, national contexts of England and Scotland. It integrates a range of theoretical legacies, namely ‘muddling through’, multi-level governance, and positional analysis, to look across governmental layers and out to non-governmental actors at all levels. Underneath the 80% target, the framework for action remains unclear. Lower-tiered authorities report difficulties in acting in a more comprehensive or rapid manner than upper tiers of government, largely because of the potential costs involved and a significant resource dependency on national governments. Ambition is also tempered by conflicts with economic growth objectives and the difficulties in aligning the objectives of the myriad of public and private organizations that need to take action. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Prospects for mitigating climate change require decarbonisation of the energy sector over relatively short time periods, coupled with significant changes to the way we consume energy. This is particularly true in the transport sector given the current levels of transport-related greenhouse gas emissions, the heavy dependence on fossil fuels, and the uncertainty surrounding transition pathways to ultra-low carbon vehicles. There are policy responses aiming to reduce carbon emissions by changing travel behaviour, but prominent approaches share a common theme of seeking to change behaviour by focusing on the individual and their choices. These are the object of critics who maintain that effective change requires collective action at the social, economic and cultural levels. This paper questions whether decision-makers are relying on these choice-based approaches to change travel behaviour and, if so, how effective they expect them to be. We address this through analysis of over 50 interviews with policy stakeholders in England and Scotland. We find dominant policy approaches do focus on individual choices, but significantly it is not because decision-makers have faith in their effectiveness. These approaches persist in policy on carbon reduction for two reasons. One is appeal to a politically powerful, but incoherent, discourse of individualism. The second is that decision-makers do not want significant behavioural change. There is an imperative of economic growth and a firm belief that a strong economy is linked to higher traffic levels, and that to reduce the demand for travel is to risk economic damage. We argue that these beliefs about the relation between travel demand and prosperity are narrowly defined and contestable for empirical and normative reasons. If there is to be a significant change in the approach to intervening in travel demand there is an urgency to engage in the politics of behaviour change - a meta-level behaviour change challenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Climate change is one of the key global policy issues of our time. Transport is the sector from which it has been hardest to cut emissions and, to make substantial progress in the future, action will be required at all levels of government from international to local. The governance of transport within this already challenging arena is further complicated by the existence of different structures for the management of transport modes and variations in formal governance structures across countries and regions. This paper examines the prospect for deep cuts in CO2 emissions from transport through an examination of the key policy levers for change and considering the governance issues that surround them. The focus of the paper is the United Kingdom, and in particular England and Scotland. The UK is the first country to have a legally binding internal obligation to meet carbon dioxide reduction targets and this has prompted significant activity in both governance institutions and delivery. The research uses a multi-level governance framework to understand the policy environment in England and Scotland, capturing both the range of spatial actors and the influence of sectoral actors in what is a complex polity. It is concluded that the policy approach currently appears constrained by a desire to divide accountability by formal institutional structures, thus failing to tackle the dispersed nature of travel and the national and international nature of businesses. There is currently a lack of clarity about the tiering of responsibilities between spatial levels and there is therefore a comparative lack of commitment to the potential for demand management and travel reduction strategies to contribute to carbon reduction. Carbon reduction policies are also influenced by strong industry lobbies whose goals may not be fully aligned with carbon reduction strategies. The profusion of actors engaged in climate change policy seems to dilute rather than promote effective policy making. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The Paris Agreement requires radical action across all policy sectors and at all scales of government. This paper argues that without a clear framework for sectoral budget setting which takes account of interactions across spatial scales, incoherent and inadequate policy responses will result. Using a case study of the transport sector within the UK, which has committed to a zero carbon pathway in law, we look at three key elements which have to be considered in setting out a new framework: budget coherence, accounting coherence and policy coherence. Using top-down and bottom-up examples emerging from practices today in the UK, we demonstrate that there are no 'optimal' solutions but a set of choices, all of which appear to be better than the patchwork of approaches emerging in the absence of a framework. A multi-scalar approach is essential as transport crosses spatial boundaries and the policy system places different levers at different scales. Transparency will be beneficial for honesty with the public and the difficult politics this rapid transition necessitates. It will also mitigate against blame shifting across governments between and within scales and the resultant inaction which characterized the previous decade of supposed 'climate action'. [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]