Decarbonising Transport Deliberative Research

Decarbonising Transport Deliberative Research

Research report December 2020

Contents

1. Background and Objectives _________________________________________________ 6 1.1. Introduction __________________________________________________________ 6 1.2. Research objectives ____________________________________________________ 7 1.3. What is deliberative research? ____________________________________________ 7

2. Methodology _____________________________________________________________ 8 2.1. Strand 1: deliberative research with the general public _________________________ 8

Structure ______________________________________________________________ 9 Sample ______________________________________________________________ 10 Content ______________________________________________________________ 10

2.2. Strand 2: deliberative research with young people ___________________________ 11 Structure _____________________________________________________________ 11 Sample ______________________________________________________________ 11 Content ______________________________________________________________ 12

2.3. Strand 3: quantitative research __________________________________________ 12 2.4. Structure of this report _________________________________________________ 13

A note on attribution ____________________________________________________ 13 3. Executive summary ______________________________________________________ 14

3.1. Background _________________________________________________________ 14 3.2. Key findings _________________________________________________________ 14

4. Drivers of current travel behaviour ___________________________________________ 17 4.1. Modal choices _______________________________________________________ 17 4.2. Factors that affect travel choices _________________________________________ 18

Life-stage _____________________________________________________________ 18 Location ______________________________________________________________ 21 Attitudinal factors _______________________________________________________ 21 Other factors __________________________________________________________ 22

5. Impact of Covid-19 on travel behaviour _______________________________________ 23 5.1. Travel behaviours pre- and during lockdown ________________________________ 23 5.2. Travel behaviours post-lockdown _________________________________________ 24

Work-related travel choices _______________________________________________ 25 Leisure travel choices ___________________________________________________ 25 Quantitative findings ____________________________________________________ 26

6. Encouraging sustainable travel behaviour: a modal view __________________________ 29 6.1. Car ________________________________________________________________ 29

Summary of levers for encouraging use of driving alternatives ____________________ 33 6.2. Electric Vehicles (EVs) _________________________________________________ 33

Summary of levers for encouraging uptake of EVs _____________________________ 37 6.3. Public transport ______________________________________________________ 37

Summary of levers for encouraging use of public transport ______________________ 44 6.4. Active travel _________________________________________________________ 44

Summary of levers for encouraging active travel ______________________________ 52 6.5. Aviation ____________________________________________________________ 52

7. Transport futures ________________________________________________________ 56 7.1. Preferences for the future of transport _____________________________________ 56

Attitudes towards mobility hubs ____________________________________________ 58 7.2. The environment and future transport _____________________________________ 59

Knowledge and awareness of the environmental impact of transport _______________ 59 Attitudes towards sustainable travel behaviours _______________________________ 60 The pace of change _____________________________________________________ 61

7.3. Principles to guide future transport decision-making __________________________ 64 8. Young people (aged 11-18) ________________________________________________ 65

8.1. Current travel behaviour _______________________________________________ 65 Impact of Covid-19 on travel behaviour ______________________________________ 67

8.2. Transport mode deep-dives _____________________________________________ 67 Driving _______________________________________________________________ 67 Public transport ________________________________________________________ 68 Active travel ___________________________________________________________ 68 Aviation ______________________________________________________________ 69

8.3. Transport futures _____________________________________________________ 69 Conclusions ___________________________________________________________ 71

9. Northern Ireland _________________________________________________________ 72 9.1. Current travel behaviour _______________________________________________ 72

Driving _______________________________________________________________ 72 Public transport ________________________________________________________ 73 Active travel ___________________________________________________________ 75

9.2. Barriers to behaviour change ____________________________________________ 77 9.3. Impact of Covid-19 on travel behaviour ____________________________________ 78

10. Conclusions ___________________________________________________________ 81

10.1. Summary of findings _________________________________________________ 81 10.2. Opportunities to change transport behaviour _______________________________ 82 10.3. Guiding principles for developing effective behaviour change mechanisms _______ 85

11. Appendix ______________________________________________________________ 86 11.1. Specialist Group _____________________________________________________ 86 11.2. Strand 1 – general public sample breakdown ______________________________ 87 11.3. Strand 2 - young people sample breakdown _______________________________ 90 11.4. Strand 3 – quantitative sample breakdown ________________________________ 91 11.5. Future scenarios overview _____________________________________________ 92

The car is king _________________________________________________________ 92 15-minute communities __________________________________________________ 94 Digital life _____________________________________________________________ 96

BritainThinks 5

1. Background and Objectives

1.1. Introduction

Transport policy is at the heart of some of the most important changes facing our country. The government’s legally binding commitment to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 creates an imperative to change how transport operates in the long and short term. Behaviour change will play a vital part in meeting this target, with an estimated 62% of the change needed to reach net zero carbon emissions requiring some form of behaviour change (Figure 1). In the context of transport, this will require encouraging people to travel in more sustainable ways – including through increased walking and cycling and increased used of shared services and public transport.

Figure 1: The estimated role of societal and behaviour changes in meeting the Governments Net Zero target.

Source: Committee on Climate Change analysis, slide 25 in ‘The role of energy in meeting the UK’s net zero greenhouse gas targets’; https://carbonliteracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/CCC-Energy-role-in-meeting-net-zero-targets.pdf

In March 2020, we glimpsed what the world looks like with fewer cars on the streets, as lockdown led to drastically reduced levels of travel. This presented an opportunity to learn how travel choices can be influenced in the future, to ask to what extent travel behaviours and attitudes have changed, and to investigate how we can encourage people to make more sustainable transport choices.

In July 2020, the Department for Transport commissioned BritainThinks to conduct a deliberative research project to develop a deeper understanding of how members of the UK public are thinking about travel decisions in the light of the Covid-19 pandemic, and to investigate how they perceive the future of travel.

9%

38%53%

Estimated role of different changes in meeting the Net Zero target

Low-carbon technologies or fuels not societal / behavioural changes

Measures with a combination of lowcarbon technologies and societal / behavioural changesLargely societal or behavioural changes

BritainThinks 6

1.2. Research objectives

Specifically, the research objectives were to:

Understand the implications of Covid-19 for transport decisions

This included participants’ expectations for travel coming out of lockdown, identifying how lower carbon emission behaviours (e.g. active travel, working from home) could be maintained post-lockdown and how to encourage the public back on to public transport given safety concerns related to Covid-19.

Understand what drives travel behaviours: what levers might be more effective to encourage more sustainable transport choices

The research examined the factors that influenced travel and mode decisions, and what elements people trade off and how. It looked at a range of potential levers to encourage greener travel choices, exploring motivators and barriers to use.

Understand responses to a range of interventions that could encourage ‘greener’ behaviour

This included presenting participants with specific intervention ideas around active travel, public transport, aviation, electric vehicles and ridesharing to understand the perceived benefits and drawbacks, and how schemes could be improved to increase their appeal and potential impact on travel choices.

Understand how environmental considerations fit into people’s travel choices

This covered the extent to which climate change was a factor in travel decision-making, and what would need to happen for it to be considered (more). The research explored the extent to which participants recognised the wider benefits of active travel, such as health and cost.

1.3. What is deliberative research?

Deliberative research is an established method of generating in-depth insight to inform decision-making. It is a technique that helps to enable productive conversations on complicated or uncertain subjects. In deliberative approaches, participants learn about a topic that they might know little about or may not typically think about in much depth in their day-to-day lives. By engaging with information, evidence and expert opinion, public participants are enabled to engage on complex topics that cannot be suitably covered in traditional research (such as focus groups or surveys).

Deliberative approaches seek to understand the public’s values and explore how they make difficult trade-offs, after weighing up different evidence and information. It is also an opportunity to see why ‘logical’ solutions might be rejected.

A Specialist Group provided expert views to inform the information that was provided to participants, as well as to ensure that the discussions built on existing industry knowledge and academic thought as far as possible. We would like to thank each member of the Specialist

BritainThinks 7

Group for their valuable contribution. A list of members of the Specialist Advisory Group is included under Appendix 9.1.

2. Methodology

To address the research objectives, BritainThinks designed a three-strand approach comprising:

• Strand 1: a large-scale deliberative project, with 158 UK adults drawn from the general public.

• Strand 2: an accompanying, smaller scale deliberative project, with 27 young people aged 11-18 drawn from across the UK.

• Strand 3: a large-scale quantitative survey of 2,305 UK adults.

The research took place throughout September 2020. During the research period, various measures relating to the Covid-19 pandemic were introduced. These events should be borne in mind when considering the findings.

• Start of September: schools re-opened in most of the UK, and UK government advice was that those who could return to office-based work should do so.

• Middle of September: infections start rising.

o 11th Sept: the R rate rises above 1 for the first time since March.

o 17th Sept: the ONS reported that 62% of workers in Great Britain travelled to work the previous week.

o 21st Sept: UK Covid-19 alert level was upgraded to level 4.

• 22nd September: government advised workers in England to return to working from home where possible, and new restrictions on socialising were announced.

• End of September: universities started to re-open.

2.1. Strand 1: deliberative research with the general public

Though there is no ‘set’ method of conducting deliberative research, typically it is conducted face-to-face, in reconvened workshops with relatively large groups of the public. Given the circumstances surrounding the pandemic, we adopted an innovative, cutting-edge approach to ‘digital deliberation’. At the core of this approach was a three-week online community, accompanied by regular online focus groups for all participants. During this time, participants therefore engaged in a combination of live and ‘asynchronous’ (i.e. completed in participants’ own time) activities. This allowed them to build their knowledge over the course of the research and have time to reflect and absorb information in a natural way.

BritainThinks 8

Structure

• Plenary launch session for all participants. This consisted of:

o A plenary session: welcoming all 158 participants.

o 24 break-out groups: 90-minute focus groups exploring experiences of the Covid-19 lockdown, how this has changed travel behaviours and initial thoughts on what this means for the future.

o Each group consisted of 5-7 participants, and the same groups were maintained throughout all subsequent live group discussions, helping to build rapport within groups and engagement with the programme.

o Groups were split by region and rurality (for example, one group consisted of South West, rural participants, another consisted of South West, urban participants, and so on for every region and nation).

• Online community for all participants:

o An online community that participants accessed and completed in between live events and groups, consisting of 14 activities over three weeks.

o Each week addressed a different topic:

§ Week 1: routine journeys

§ Week 2: leisure journeys

§ Week 3: future travel scenarios

o Participants submitted responses by text, video and photographs. The community was actively moderated by researchers to probe responses.

• Online focus groups for all participants, in smaller groups:

o Two sets of live online focus groups (54 in total) were run in parallel to the online community, towards the end of the first and second weeks. These were to understand attitudes towards routine and leisure travel, and responses to policy options designed for the purposes of the research (not necessarily Government policy), in more detail.

o The groups mirrored the break-out groups from the initial live plenary, with each group consisting of the same participants (around six), split by location and rurality, and lasting 90 minutes.

• Live plenary close session for all participants. This consisted of:

o A plenary close session: sharing reflections and live polling, with participants voting on participant-generated ideas.

o 24 break-out groups: the final groups focused on understanding the role of the environment in travel decisions, and aspirations for the future of transport.

Fieldwork took place between 3rd September and 28th September 2020.

BritainThinks 9

Sample

Participants were recruited to provide an inclusive sample reflective of UK residents, including:

• 12 participants from each Government Office Region (GOR) and devolved administration, and 32 participants from Northern Ireland (NI)

o The Northern Ireland sample was ‘boosted’ to ensure better sample representation from NI. The Department for Transport worked in collaboration with the devolved administrations on this project and Northern Ireland decided to fund a sample increase in Northern Ireland to get better sample representation there.

o To mitigate the risk of attrition, we over-recruited in each region and devolved administration (12 people for a target of 10) except Northern Ireland (where we recruited 35 participants against a target of 30). Of the 167 participants recruited, 158 completed all or almost all activities, and nine dropped out (including six in Northern Ireland)

• A spread of demographics within each region/nation, including gender, age, ethnicity, rural/urban, disability, mobility impairments and socio-economic groups.

• A range of attitudes and behaviours in relation to travel, modal use and climate change.

Each participant went through the whole research process, allowing us to learn about their ‘starting position’, and then slowly build their knowledge and understanding to enable them to comment on complex and unfamiliar concepts around travel choices and scenarios.

The full sample recruitment specification is available under Appendix 10.2.

Content

The research covered a broad range of content including:

• Travel behaviours pre-Covid-19, and the key drivers of transport decisions.

• Impact of Covid-19 on work, leisure and travel behaviour in the short term and longer term.

• Attitudes towards proposed travel interventions:

o Car: ridesharing, feebate for EVs, 2035/2040 phase out of ICE vehicles*;

o Public transport: Demand Responsive Transport (DRT), reducing the cost of public transport, luxury coach travel;

o Active travel: e-bike purchase schemes, low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs).

• The future of transport:

o Exploring mobility hubs and flexi-mobility;

o Exploring three possible futures, using possible future scenarios that were co-developed with DfT;

BritainThinks 10

o How to encourage people to make ‘greener’ travel choices;

o Priorities and principles for decision-makers.

* Please note that in between this research concluding and being published, the Prime Minister announced that the UK will end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030, and all new cars and vans will be required to be fully zero emission at the tailpipe from 2035. Between 2030 and 2035, new cars and vans can be sold if they have significant zero emission capability, which would include some plug-in and full hybrids. The definition of significant zero emission capability will be consulted on later this year.

2.2. Strand 2: deliberative research with young people

Young people (11-18-year-olds) took part in a parallel research programme which followed a similar, albeit reduced and simplified, process as the adult participants.

Structure

• Online community:

o 2-week online community from 26th August to 8th September 2020.

o Each week addressed a different area:

§ Week 1: current travel behaviours

§ Week 2: future travel scenarios, concerns and aspirations

o Participants responded through text, video, drawing and photographs.

• Online focus group:

o One 90-minute focus group on 3rd September.

o 4 groups arranged by age, with mixtures of regions and rurality.

o Focus groups further explored the topics within the online community.

Sample

Participants were recruited to provide a diverse sample reflective of UK residents, ensuring the sample had:

• Representation from each UK region, and a mixture of rurality.

• A representative balance of social grade, gender and ethnicity.

• An equal split of ages, with 6-7 participants for each of the following age bands: 11-12-year-olds; 13-14-year-olds; 15-16-year-olds; and 17-18-year-olds.

Each participant took part in all research activities, allowing us to learn about their ‘starting position’, and then slowly build their knowledge and understanding to enable them to comment on complex and unfamiliar concepts around travel choices and scenarios.

BritainThinks 11

Participants were also asked to record a video of themselves giving a ‘message to the general public’. An edited version of these responses was shown at the final plenary event in the main strand of research.

The full recruitment specification is available under Appendix 11.3.

Content

The research content was based on the content covered in Strand 1 but simplified and streamlined for this strand. The content aimed to:

• Understand young people’s current travel experiences and views;

• Explore young people’s attitudes towards the environment, and how transport factors into this;

• Explore attitudes towards future transport options e.g. shared mobility services, e-bikes, ridesharing;

• Messages for the general public.

As in Strand 1, participants were presented with three ‘future scenarios’ to prompt discussion and explore priorities and attitudes towards future transport. These were based on the same scenarios as in the adult strand but were tailored for the audience.

2.3. Strand 3: quantitative research

An online survey was used to complement and supplement findings from the deliberative phases.

This strand comprised an online survey of 2,305 UK adults aged 16+ (with a boost for Northern Ireland), weighted to be nationally representative by age, gender, income and region. Details of the final sample are shown in Appendix 10.4. of this report.

Fieldwork was conducted via an online panel using a c.20-question survey, covering a range of topics. The questions relevant to the qualitative research strand include:

• Frequency of mode use pre-Covid-19 and anticipated mode use post-Covid-19, including car, public transport, active travel and air travel;

• Understanding and familiarity with e-bikes;

• Questions around electric vehicles (EVs), including purchase intent, perceived availability of charging points for EVs and anticipated behaviour in using these, and the potential impact of the government’s proposal to end the sale of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles in 2035/2040*;

• Attitudes towards cycling, interest in cycle training and opinions around the content of cycle training;

• Attitudes around individuals’ carbon footprints.

Fieldwork took place between 21st September and 28th September 2020.

BritainThinks 12


2.4. Structure of this report

The report is structured as follows:

• Section 4 explores how participants make travel choices and some of the demographic and attitudinal factors that influence choices.

• Section 5 looks at the impact that Covid-19 has had on travel choices, at the time of the research and in the future.

• Section 6 examines in detail the drivers and barriers to the use of individual modes including the car, public transport and active travel. In each case the report explores how each of the proposed interventions may be received by the public, their likely impact, and how they could be refined to have a greater impact.

• Section 7 looks at various transport future options, using our scenarios as a starting point to elicit detailed views on what participants want the future of transport to look like, and what they do not want it to look like.

A note on attribution

Throughout the report, we indicate findings from the qualitative strands by referring to ‘participants’ and from the survey by referring to ‘respondents’. Verbatim quotations are taken from live sessions and excerpts from the online community throughout.

For quotations from adults we give the location and rurality of the participant, whereas for the young people’s strand we give either the age and region (for online community quotations) or just age (for focus groups, where locations were mixed).

BritainThinks 13

3. Executive summary

3.1. Background

The Department for Transport (DfT) commissioned BritainThinks to conduct a deliberative research project to:

• Understand the complexities and underlying drivers of individual and household decision-making in relation to current and future sustainable transport behaviour, and the effect of Covid-19 on this decision-making.

• Understand what policy interventions could encourage people to travel more sustainably and how these can be optimised to suit how people behave.

3.2. Key findings

This research has highlighted that convenience, comfort and cost, underpinned by habit, were by far the most important factors influencing travel decisions today. For many, cars provide significant benefits over other modes on these measures, leading to widespread use of and attachment to the car.

This attachment to the car has increased since the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic, with participants valuing the safety, through social isolation, of travel offered by private vehicle. Further, the evidence suggests that a significant proportion of increased cycling and walking during lockdown was for recreation. There is some evidence to suggest that cycling for recreation can lead to cycling for utility. However, with more people driving it is unclear what the overall impact of the pandemic will be on sustainable travel and it is possible that, overall, Covid-19 may present more of a risk than an opportunity in terms of its impact on sustainable travel behaviour.

This research also highlighted that, except for a small minority, the environment was not a consideration when making transport choices. However, while this research also demonstrated clear knowledge and awareness gaps about the environmental impact of transport, a focus on ‘education’ alone is unlikely to be effective in encouraging the uptake of more sustainable travel behaviour. Participants in this research told us that when they have used more sustainable modes of transport such as public or active travel, it was often because the car was a sub-optimal option due to being less convenient (e.g. difficult to park) or more expensive (e.g. due to parking or congestion fees). Therefore the research revealed that the most effective measures for encouraging sustainable travel would make car use less convenient or more expensive. However, there was also a sense that the ‘punitive’ nature of these measures would be off-putting, and would only be effective if viable, safe and attractive alternatives to the car were also made more accessible (be this an actual or perceived shift in provision).

Younger and older people tended to be most receptive to change, with younger people being less habituated to driving and more receptive to environmental messages, while older people were less time-pressured and more open to exploring options seen to be less ‘convenient’. Conversely, working-age adults, parents of young children and those in rural areas who felt

BritainThinks 14

they had very limited alternatives to driving were less receptive to exploring non-car travel modes.

To help understand what would encourage people to change their travel behaviours and adopt more sustainable modes of transport, this research has drawn upon the ‘Capability Opportunity Motivation – Behaviour’ model (COM-B model), a key behavioural change theory. According to ‘The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions’ (Susan Michie, Lou Atkins & Robert West, 2014, p. 59-60), the COM-B model dictates that for any behaviour to occur:

1. There must be capability; this can be either ‘physical’ (e.g. physical skills, strength or stamina) or ‘psychological’ (having the cognitive skills, strength or stamina as well as knowledge) to perform the behaviour.

2. There must be opportunity; this can be ‘physical’ (e.g. physically accessible) or ‘social’ (including cultural norms, interpersonal influences, and social cues).

3. There must be sufficient motivation; this can be ‘reflective’ (involving self-conscious planning and beliefs about what is good or bad), or ‘automatic’ (processes involving wants and needs, desire, impulses and reflex responses).

This research identified a number of potential interventions that would be most effective at shifting behaviour towards more sustainable alternatives. These ideas for potential interventions were designed as research tools, and do not represent government policy. The COM-B model provides a framework within which these ideas can be understood and highlights gaps that need to be addressed in terms of people’s capability, opportunity and motivation to partake in them. The remainder of this section considers the potential interventions put forward in this report structured by the COM-B framework.

In order to encourage more sustainable travel, any potential interventions need to ensure that the public are capable of carrying out the behaviour and that any physical or psychological barriers are removed:

• Try before you buy schemes lower the cost barriers to entry and could prompt action by allowing people to test whether alternatives suit them and their lifestyles before making any long-term commitments.

• Linking environmental impact and travel choices more explicitly by providing the relevant knowledge at key stages of the decision-making process, such as through apps that include carbon emissions information for different modes, could be a good first step towards consideration of sustainable transport options in the future.

Interventions must provide opportunities for the behaviour to occur and ensure there are safe and attractive alternative modes of transport available:

• A gradual transition to more sustainable modes over a number of years was felt by participants to be more realistic, both in terms of enabling the relevant infrastructure to be updated and developed and in terms of their own behaviour, allowing them to plan and prepare for changes to their lifestyles and routines.

• Increasing cycling infrastructure and public transport capacity and connectivity, especially in rural areas, and introducing Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) where feasible will provide more non-car opportunities for travel.

BritainThinks 15

• Addressing negative perceptions of cycling and cyclists, and broadening the image of who can be a cyclist, by making cycling more accessible and aspirational to a wider group of people would help to break down current social barriers to uptake.

• Increasing the visibility of electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure to make them appear more widespread, such as through widespread or priority parking for EVs and visible charging infrastructure, clearly signposts to the public that this technology is ready for them today rather than having to wait until further into the future.

Interventions must provide sufficient motivation and must persuade and incentivise people:

• Addressing the safety concerns of cycling to make cycling feel safer for a wider group of people, by ensuring that cycle lanes are continuous, well-lit and separated from traffic.

• Focussing on leisure journeys as a first step, including introducing cost incentives for leisure travel, as these behaviours are far less habitual and less entrenched, allowing people to try alternatives when decisions can be more considered and less time-pressured.

• Highlighting social and community benefits of alternatives such as Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), as this provides a wider scope for motivating behaviour change beyond the environmental argument which does not resonate for most.

Ultimately, participants wanted Government-led support and transport decision-makers to make it easier for them to make more sustainable travel decisions. Consequently, participants identified a number of guiding principles for any future investment in measures to encourage sustainable travel:

• Public engagement at the local level to ensure that interventions or policies are accessible and meet the needs of local people now and into the future;

• Future investment in transport infrastructure so that people both want and are able to use sustainable forms of transport, and transport changes are fair, ensuring the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society are not disproportionately affected;

• Future proofing of policy decisions to ensure changes are long-term and consistent with other Government policies.

BritainThinks 16

4. Drivers of current travel behaviour

Travel choices were based on habit, where participants lived, and the relative

convenience of different modes of transport. The environment rarely had an impact on

transport decisions.

4.1. Modal choices

Many travel choices were not conscious choices at all, but the product of habits formed over time – particularly in relation to routine journeys and commuting. For example, once someone became accustomed to driving, it became their natural choice for many journeys, and it was rare that they would consider alternatives.

The research revealed a clear hierarchy of decision-making around travel choices. After habit, the most important factor was often convenience. This was a broad concept which covered a range of issues including:

• Journey speed – with a preference for shorter journeys;

• Reliability – in terms of services being available (with reasonable frequency) and the ability to accurately estimate journey times;

• Flexibility – the ability to change plans during the journey;

• Being ‘family friendly’ – this included the ability to easily carry luggage and other items, being able to entertain children while travelling, and being able to make unscheduled stops to use the toilet;

• Being ‘door-to-door’, with a preference for simpler journeys with minimal interchange or need to travel to get to the mode of transport;

• The availability and ease of access to transport options, including public transport.

“Driving is still easy, comfortable and reliable. It is the way of transporting yourself from A to E via a stop-off at B, C, a detour to D and, after going back to B, arriving at E.” (West Midlands, urban)

In addition to convenience, comfort was a key consideration in participants’ travel choices. This covered a range of issues with an emotional dimension, including personal space, perceived hygiene, personal safety, and the sense of autonomy and control over the journey.

Cost was another factor that participants considered, though the influence of cost on journey decisions is not always straightforward. For example, car owners tended to focus on the ‘on-the-day’ cost, rather than actual costs involved in owning and maintaining a car. Purchase and upkeep costs were effectively ‘priced in’ to decision making, while incidental costs such as parking and fuel charges were the basis for decisions and comparisons.

In contrast to these factors, the environment did not have an influence on transport choices. Very few mentioned the environment in relation to their transport considerations, and when prompted it was only considered a ‘bonus’ if their choice had environmental benefits.

BritainThinks 17

Those who owned a car considered driving to have clear advantages over other modes: the car was considered to be more convenient, more comfortable and cheaper than alternatives in most cases. In addition, most drivers had formed a strong reliance on their car.

Conversely, many people considered public transport to be slower, less comfortable and less convenient than driving, and more expensive (especially when travelling in a group). Since most people have a car (74% of respondents to the quantitative survey said that they drove a car), there was a clear preference for using the car for most journeys.

However, there were circumstances where participants considered other modes to have advantages over the car. For example, public transport was preferred when participants wanted to drink alcohol and therefore could not drive. Participants often chose to take public transport into and around city centres to avoid high congestion and parking charges. In London, the extensive public transport network coupled with high levels of road congestion meant that public transport was often considered more convenient than travelling by car. Public transport was also considered to have an advantage in terms of speed for some long-distance journeys – travelling by train or domestic flight could be faster.

“The only times I would really use the train was if I planned to drink after work or if the car was going to a garage. It takes a lot longer to get to work by train and the train is often delayed so I don’t enjoy travelling this way.” (South East, rural)

4.2. Factors that affect travel choices

Alongside the hierarchy of factors described above, travel behaviours were influenced by a range of demographic and attitudinal attributes.

Life-stage

Life-stage had a strong influence on participants’ travel choices and behaviours, and the research identified four main groups whose behaviours were particularly affected:

• 11-18-year-olds

• Younger adults (up to around 35)

• Parents of young children

• Older adults (over 55)

11-18-year-olds 11-18-year-olds had limited control over their choice of mode, which was largely dependent on their parents and where they lived. For example, for journeys to and from school, the mode of choice depended on how far they needed to travel, the availability of public transport options, and their parents’ ability and willingness to drive them to school.

This group was more environmentally aware than those in older age groups and felt more positive about public transport. Many enjoyed the sociability of travelling to school by bus or train with their friends, and this group were more likely to walk and cycle and show interest in these as modes of transport (rather than for recreation) compared with older groups.

BritainThinks 18

Many of the factors that drove choice among adults were not as important for this group. Given the age group, the majority could not drive, though it is worth noting that most of them expected that they would drive in future. On the whole, parents paid for travel, meaning cost was not a strong factor.

Younger adults As the table below shows (Figure 2), age was a key indicator of modal use pre-Covid-19, with younger adults more likely to use public transport and less likely to drive a car than older people. While 78% of older respondents used a car as a driver, among 18-34-years-olds this fell to 69%. Conversely, 52% of 18-34-year-olds cycled, compared with just 28% of those aged 55 and over. Younger respondents were also more likely to use trains, the Tube/metro, coaches, trams and motorbikes.

Figure 2: Use of different modes of transport by age

Mode of transport 18-34-year olds 35-54-year olds 55 years and older

Car (as a passenger) 89% 84% 85%

Train 83% 79% 74%

Bus 78% 76% 77%

Car (as a driver) 69% 73% 78%

Taxi 77% 71% 64%

Tube/metro 65% 56% 48%

Coach 58% 47% 47%

Bicycle 52% 45% 28%

Tram/light rail 47% 34% 28%

Motorbike 18% 8% 5%

Q5. Thinking about your travel behaviours in 2019, before Coronavirus, how frequently or infrequently would you say you used each of the following modes of transport? Base: All respondents aged 18-34 (n=631), 35-54 (n=766), 55+ (n=908)

Younger people overall had a wider modal repertoire than other age groups, using public transport where convenient – particularly in urban areas, which were considered better served by public transport. As shown in the table below (Figure 3), 18-34-year olds reported using 2.3 modes frequently per week, compared with just 1.5 for those aged 55 and over.

BritainThinks 19

Figure 3: Average number of different modes of transport used by age

Average number of modes… 18-34-years olds 35-54 years olds 55 years and

older

Used frequently (at least once

a week) 2.3 1.7 1.5

Used at least once before 6.4 5.7 5.4

Q5. Thinking about your travel behaviours in 2019, before Coronavirus, how frequently or infrequently would you say you used each of the following modes of transport? Base: All respondents aged 18-34 (n=631), 35-54 (n=766), 55+ (n=908)

While this group was more environmentally conscious than older groups, this still had limited impact on their travel choices, both domestically and internationally. In particular, most younger people would not consider giving up flying abroad for a holiday, on the basis that they did not see any viable alternative to plane travel.

Parents of young children This group considered themselves to be highly dependent on their cars and tended to use them for most journeys. They often described themselves as time-poor, meaning that they valued the reliability and speed of journey times that the car offered. They also frequently made journeys with multiple stops – for example, from their workplace to pick up children from school, then to the shops, before going home. They also often found that they needed to take lots of things with them on journeys, such as equipment for their children.

“If we didn’t have the car, we wouldn’t be able to go on random family adventures to remote places.” (East, urban)

“I drive the children to school because it means they are comfortable, warm and dry and the journey is quick.” (North East, rural)

Older people Older participants tended to travel less frequently and used a smaller range of modes of transport. Although the car was still the mode they used most frequently, this group was less likely to rely on the car for commuting (as they are more likely to be retired), meaning reliability and convenience were less salient. Some also had concerns about driving for particular journeys, including unfamiliar routes, driving into large cities with high congestion, driving on motorways, or driving at night.

This made public transport more attractive for certain journeys. Participants with free bus passes also cited this as a reason for using public transport. However, for those with mobility or accessibility issues, public transport was often considered difficult to use, particularly around boarding and disembarking. For those with mobility issues, the perceived lack of toilet facilities on or around public transport was a particular concern.

“Being retired means I can make greener choices – I have more time, and I can book cheaper train tickets by choosing when I travel.” (North West, rural)

BritainThinks 20

Location

Travel choices and behaviours were also influenced by where people live – with a clear difference between those living in rural and urban areas, and London being the biggest outlier.

Urban versus rural Participants living in rural areas were reliant on cars for travel. Longer distances, the perceived lack of public transport choices, and absence of cycle lanes and pavements led many to feel that driving was their only option. As a result, participants living in rural areas were more likely to drive and to use their car more often than those in urban locations.

“There are only two buses a day where I live, so I have to take the car.” (Northern Ireland, rural)

Conversely, those living in urban areas were more open to alternatives to driving. They used a wider range of transport modes and felt they had better access to public transport and pavements (though not necessarily cycle lanes). In the survey, urban respondents were significantly more likely to be users of the train, bus, taxi, Tube/metro, coach and tram/light railway than those living in rural areas. They were also more likely to use these modes more often: for example, 26% of urban respondents used the bus at least once a week, compared with just 9% for rural respondents.

Despite this, most urban participants still believed that they needed to own a car for longer journeys, to reach places inaccessible by public transport, when they needed to take luggage, or when travelling by car was a much faster option.

London and the regions London was a clear outlier due to the scale of public transport and other infrastructure and the levels of congestion. This made public transport a more convenient and accessible choice for many. Participants from other cities (e.g. Brighton) also reported having better access to public transport, combined with difficulties in finding parking spaces, which made driving less attractive in those areas.

“I feel quite lucky because we have good transport links already.” (London, urban)

However, outside of these pockets, the current public transport network was not widely viewed as providing a viable alternative to car ownership for most people.

Attitudinal factors

Attitudes affecting transport choices appeared to function on a scale, with strong views at each end.

At one extreme there was a group of ‘die-hard drivers’, who felt that it would be impossible to give up their car. These were more likely to be parents, live in rural areas, or need their car for work. They tended to be more negative about public transport, both in terms of its availability and practicality for their needs, and as such would be a difficult group to convert to greener travel choices.

BritainThinks 21

“I’d rather stay at home and not make the journey if I’m not allowed to use the car.” (East Midlands, suburban)

At the other end were ‘passionate environmentalists’. This was a small group in the sample, for whom environmental considerations were an important factor in their travel choices. They were more likely to use public transport, and to do so for environmental reasons. That said, the environment remained only one factor in their decision-making process, and many felt that they still needed to drive on occasions. They were also unlikely to give up international air travel as a result of their views, considering it as the only option to travel overseas. In general, this group was younger, more likely to live in an urban area, and more likely to be non-drivers.

“I am becoming increasingly more conscious of being environmentally friendly, so hopefully across all transport systems we can see modes of transport which would be less harmful to the environment. But when I buy a car, it will probably be a second-hand petrol or diesel car because they are cheaper. I have to think about cost because I’m a student.” (Northern Ireland, urban)

Other factors

Finally, there were three further attributes that affected travel choices and behaviours, some of which overlap with other attributes discussed above.

People with mobility issues For this group, public transport was often considered inaccessible or inconvenient. Where participants with mobility issues could drive, this was often their preferred mode of transport. Otherwise, they tended to rely on getting a lift, or on Dial-a-Ride type services.

People who drive for work These participants used a car for their work, either to drive between sites or as professional drivers. For this group, the car was effectively an extension of self, and they viewed the car as a complete necessity that they could not imagine life without. Overlapping with the ‘die-hard drivers’, this group was negative about other modes (for example considering cyclists to be dangerous, or public transport to be dirty and inconvenient).

Socio-economic groups There were no large differences in motivations and views between different socio-economic groups, but those in the ABC1 group were more likely to travel in general. A greater percentage had a driving licence and drove frequently, and they were also more likely to use the bus, train, coaches and fly (domestically, short- and long-haul). In the quantitative survey, ABC1 respondents used 6.2 modes of transport on average, compared with 5.2 for C2DE respondents.

BritainThinks 22

5. Impact of Covid-19 on travel behaviour

The national lockdown that started in March 2020 caused the biggest single impact on

most people’s travel behaviour in a generation. Schools and businesses around the

country closed, and people were instructed not to leave their homes except under a

small set of exceptional circumstances. As we emerged from lockdown

(notwithstanding new local restrictions), old habits began to return, with a lean towards

the car and away from public transport.

5.1. Travel behaviours pre- and during lockdown

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and restrictions in place at the time of fieldwork, we asked research participants about their travel plans prior to lockdown to assess their ‘normal’ travel behaviours.

The car was the mode of transport used most frequently by most respondents ‘normally’, with over two thirds (68%) of respondents driving, and 39% travelling as a car passenger, at least once a week. Almost a quarter (23%) used the bus at least once a week, and 12% cycled. The full breakdown is shown in the chart below (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Percentage of respondents using each mode at least once a week pre-lockdown

Q5. Thinking about your travel behaviours in 2019, before Coronavirus, how frequently or infrequently would you say you used each of the following modes of transport? Base: All respondents (n=2,305)

When lockdown started, many participants drastically reduced their driving and use of public transport – though essential journeys normally carried out by public transport were often switched to the car due to safety concerns. For a small minority of participants, particularly

3%

6%

8%

10%

12%

23%

39%

68%

Coach

Taxi

Tube / metro

Train

Bicycle

Bus

Car (as a passenger)

Car (as a driver)

% using each mode frequently (at least once a week) pre-lockdown

BritainThinks 23

those in urban areas with high public transport use, walking and cycling were used as alternatives to public transport during lockdown. However, those who tried this felt they were unlikely to stick with these active travel alternatives in the longer term when they returned to travelling more frequently (and in particular, commuting) and the weather became cold and wet post-summer.

More broadly, with the streets much less busy, many participants across all regions reported increasing the amount they walked and cycled, and felt that cycling was safer due to the lower levels of traffic. However, these behaviours were mainly recreational and to get exercise rather than as a mode of transport. As a result, there was little indication as restrictions were lifted throughout the autumn of 2020 that participants were developing new habits for their routine journeys via active travel.

“I try to walk 5 days a week, even if it’s for 30 minutes but this last 6 months I have been doing much longer walks, 4 miles to 6 miles in any one session.” (Yorkshire and the Humber, rural)

At the same time, the replacement of public transport with the car for some journeys further entrenched the lean towards driving.

In the survey, only a quarter of respondents (27%) said that they had taken a holiday during the pandemic, and just 5% had travelled abroad (24% had taken a holiday in the UK). Younger respondents (18-34) were most likely to have taken a holiday, either in the UK or abroad, while Scottish respondents were least likely to have taken a holiday (just 14% had done so) (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Incidence of taking a holiday during lockdown, by age

Group Total sample 18-34-years

old

35-54-years

old

55 years and

over

Net: Yes 27% 37% 24% 22%

Yes, in the UK 24% 32% 31% 19%

Yes, outside the UK 5% 9% 4% 4%

No, haven’t taken a

holiday since March 2020

73% 63% 76% 78%

Q14. Since the introduction of travel restrictions relating to Coronavirus in the UK in March 2020, have you taken a holiday? Base: Total sample (n=2,305), 18-34 (n=631), 35-55 (n=766), 55+ (n=908)

5.2. Travel behaviours post-lockdown

We asked participants to predict what their travel patterns would be like 12 months in the future, and asked them to imagine that in 12 months’ time Coronavirus is mostly under control with no social distancing restrictions in place. On the whole, participants believed that their transport patterns and modal choices would largely return to pre-lockdown norms, although a residual fear of public and shared transport led many to believe that they would use their car for more journeys (both work-related and leisure) in the future.

BritainThinks 24

“We used to use public transport to go into town for shopping, but we go everywhere by car now. I don’t feel safe on the bus with my baby, and it’s just easier to take the car.” (North West, suburban)

Those who were travelling by car pre-Covid-19 planned to return to doing so as the factors that led to that decision were still relevant. Some of those who moved away from public transport towards driving anticipated returning to public transport once it felt safe to do so (i.e. if there was a vaccine, or social distancing was more strictly enforced). Some anticipated making tweaks to their travel based on their experiences immediately following lockdown, for example getting off the train one stop early to walk.

Young people expressed safety concerns (theirs, as well as from their parents) about using public transport when they returned to school, and some shifted modes to walking or cycling with their parents in order to avoid using public transport.

Work-related travel choices

Those that worked from home expected this to continue for the foreseeable future. Working from home was seen as providing substantial benefits, including limiting the time and money spent on commuting, creating more flexible work patterns, being able to spend more time with families, and improving participants’ abilities to juggle personal and work commitments – particularly among those with families.

However, working from home also caused participants difficulties. Some found it difficult to ‘switch off’ when their home was also their workplace, and many missed social interactions and informal encounters with work colleagues. For some participants it was difficult to work from home, because they lacked either the equipment or a suitable space to carry out their work. It was also found more difficult to maintain close working relationships without face to face contact. For these reasons, there was an appetite for a mixed remote/commute future with many participants wanting to work from home for a few days per week while spending the rest of the time in the office.

“I believe I will be travelling less into work; we have been told we will not be back to work in the office, we will be doing blended working. We have been told this is the business model we will be going down. I don’t see my journey being that different – I will still cycle. I hope the government have used this time to invest in the cycling lanes, I hope drivers are more aware of it.” (Scotland, urban)

Most participants that could not work from home expected their travel patterns to return to normal, although some felt that they would be more likely to drive in the future.

“My work travel will be exactly the same to be honest – driving or cycling. I take the occasional bus if I’m out socialising.” (Wales, urban)

Leisure travel choices

On the whole, participants expected leisure travel to return to normal, although they expected continuing restrictions would mean they would need to plan their leisure travel more in advance, and would be less able to act spontaneously. When some lockdown restrictions were lifted, some of those who usually took day trips and longer weekends away as part of their leisure activities no longer did so due to safety concerns.

BritainThinks 25

“I think it will pretty much be the same, I’d quite like it to stay the same as now because there is less traffic, but I think that the traffic will probably get back to normal.” (Northern Ireland, urban)

Lockdown saw a large increase in online shopping as many high-street businesses closed and people were encouraged to stay at home. Although some participants suggested they would like to continue shopping online for some things, most felt that there were benefits of going to physical shops, feeling that some items can only be bought in shops, and that the act of shopping was an important social interaction.

“I like going shopping, and I’d miss the social interaction if it was all online.” (East Midlands, suburban)

The anticipated impact of Covid-19 on air travel is covered in section 6 of this report.

Quantitative findings

We also asked survey respondents to predict what their travel patterns would be like 12 months in the future, asking them to imagine that in in 12 months’ time Coronavirus is mostly under control with no social distancing restrictions in place.

Driving Insights from the qualitative element were reflected in the survey, which found that respondents anticipated increasing the amount they drive at the expense of public and shared transport. 22% of respondents said they would use the car (as a driver) more in 12 months’ time. The groups most likely to drive more were younger respondents (30% of those aged 18-34 thought they would drive more), those in AB socio-economic groups (27%) and London residents (27%). 15% said they would use the car as a passenger more, but this rose to 25% for those aged under 35, suggesting an increasing reliance on getting lifts among this group.

Among those who had not taken a driving test, 12% said that they were more likely to learn to drive as a result of Covid-19, while a fifth (20%) said that Covid-19 had made them less likely to want to learn to drive. Half (51%) said that it had made no difference.

• Respondents aged 18-34 were most likely to say that Covid-19 had increased their likelihood to learn to drive (22%), but roughly the same proportion of this group (21%) said that it would decrease their likelihood to learn to drive, meaning that the impact may be minimal among this group.

• As age increased, so did anticipated likelihood of Covid-19 having no impact on intention to learn to drive. 54% of those aged 35-54 and 60% of those aged 55+ indicated that Covid-19 would have no impact. While only 10% of those aged 35-54 indicated that they would be more likely to learn to drive as a result of Covid-19, this fell to 0% of those aged 55+ (Figure 6).

BritainThinks 26

Figure 6: Anticipated impact of Covid-19 on intention to learn to drive

Group Net less likely

to learn No impact

Net more

likely to learn Don’t know

Total sample 20% 51% 12% 17%

18-34-years old 21% 40% 22% 16%

35-54-years old 18% 54% 10% 17%

55 years and over 22% 60% 0% 18%

Q18. Thinking again about driving, what impact, if any, has Coronavirus had on your likelihood to learn how to drive? Base: All respondents who haven't passed their driving test (n=495)

Train Relatively few respondents said that they would use the train more in 12 months’ time (7%) (Figure 7). The groups most likely to increase their use of the train were:

• Younger people aged 18-34 (13%)

• London residents (13%)

• Respondents in the AB socio-economic groups (10%)

Conversely, a quarter of respondents (23%) said that they would use the train less in 12 months’ time, pointing to a potential overall decline (Figure 7). Younger people (29% of those aged under 35), and those living in London and the South East (27% and 32%) were most likely to expect to use trains less. There is also likely to be a decline in demand for the Tube/metro – 27% of Londoners, and 28% of those living in the South East expected to use them less frequently.

Bus As with trains, overall survey results suggest a decline in bus use post-Covid-19 with 9% of respondents expecting to use the bus more in 12 months’ time, while 23% expected to use it less (Figure 7). Again, the groups most likely to increase their use of buses were younger respondents (13% of those aged 18-34) and London residents (21%).

However, these expected increases were outweighed by the numbers of respondents expecting to use the bus less in 12 months’ time, particularly those in the AB socio-economic groups, 28% of whom expected to reduce their bus use.

Cycling While 13% of respondents said that they would cycle more in 12 months’ time than they did before Covid-19, only 4% said they would cycle less (Figure 7). However, a sizable minority (44%) of the group that expected to cycle more were already frequent cyclists. The groups most likely to say they expected to increase their cycling were younger people (19% of 18-34-year-olds), London residents (20%). and those in the AB socio-economic groups (19%).

BritainThinks 27

Figure 7: Anticipated change in mode use in 12 months’ time compared with 2019

Mode of transport Will use less No change Will use more Not applicable

/ don’t know

Car (as a driver) 7% 43% 22% 28%

Car (as a passenger) 9% 56% 15% 19%

Cycling 4% 24% 13% 59%

Bus 23% 37% 9% 31%

Train 23% 37% 7% 32%

Taxi 19% 37% 7% 37%

Tube/metro 17% 27% 5% 52%

Coach 16% 26% 4% 54%

Q16. We'd now like to think about travel in the future. In 12 months' time, do you expect that you will use each of the following modes of transport more, less or about the same amount as you did in 2019 (before Covid19)? Base: All respondents (n= 2,305)

BritainThinks 28

6. Encouraging sustainable travel behaviour: a modal view

A number of ideas to encourage more sustainable behaviour were tested with research

participants. Overall, while there were some positive reactions to each of the

interventions tested, participants had a number of suggestions around how to build on

these ideas to further encourage them to travel in more sustainable ways. All the ideas

tested were developed for the purposes of the research and do not necessarily

represent Government policy.

6.1. Car

Few transport modes could compete with the convenience and comfort offered by the

car, a mode to which many drivers were deeply attached. Encouraging people onto

other modes was perceived as a difficult challenge – one that was most effectively

addressed by making the car less convenient or more expensive, once reasonable

alternatives were in place.

Barriers to swapping car use for more sustainable travel options

One of the key barriers for people when considering more sustainable forms of travel was the fact that the car out-performed all other modes on convenience – which was the most important factor in determining travel choice. This was exacerbated for particular subsets of the population, particularly those who:

• Lived in rural areas, with limited access to reliable alternatives to driving;

• Travelled with young children, luggage or equipment;

• Made multi-destination trips, such as the school run on the way to/from work, or home or site visits for work;

• Had mobility issues, making them reliant on the car.

“I need to use our company vehicles due to the number of specialist tools and equipment required for work.” (North West, rural)

Secondary barriers were extensive and often emotional, which made them more difficult to overcome. These included perceptions that driving:

• Was the most comfortable way to travel;

• Gave a sense of autonomy, for example in deciding the route, or what time to leave/arrive;

• Was safer, in terms of hygiene (particularly in the post-Covid-19 context) as well as in terms of travelling in a private vehicle away from others;

BritainThinks 29

• Was perceived as the only way to travel, particularly for those with entrenched habits around driving and who were unwilling to try something new:

“The time that I have on my own in the car is quality time.” (North East, urban)

“I just want to go, leave my house, get to where I want to go as quickly and conveniently as I want to.” (Northern Ireland, rural)

Levers for encouraging use of driving alternatives In the qualitative research, participants were asked to reflect on actual instances where they had decided not to use a car for a journey. Participants’ triggers for using alternatives to driving predominantly related to driving being a less convenient option, rather than the perceived benefits of the alternatives themselves. These included:

• Expensive and/or limited car parking;

• High congestion or indirect driving routes making driving a much slower option.

With this in mind, when looking to encourage people to use more sustainable alternatives, the research indicated the importance of interventions disincentivising people from using their cars as well as making attractive alternatives available – as this on its own had rarely been a reason for changing behaviour.

The exception to this was for social activities and times when people might be drinking – journeys where participants were more open to alternatives due to the benefits it offered compared to driving.

The research tested a number of potential interventions focusing on encouraging more sustainable travel behaviour, exploring the extent to which participants thought they would impact their own behaviour and what changes or features would need to be in place to actually encourage behaviour change. These are examined in turn throughout this section and grouped by the mode type they aim to encourage.

Ride-sharing

Ride-sharing is an arrangement that enables people to share a car journey with others who are going in the same direction. Participants were asked to consider potential ride-sharing interventions for routine and leisure journeys, and were shown one of the options below that was most relevant to their personal circumstances:

• Lift-sharing: 12 months from now, your employer has set up the app ‘Ridepool’ where they have built a website specifically to make it easier for you and your co-workers to share car journeys. You can log on and find people to share lifts with who live close-by. Those who use the scheme will get a ‘Ridepool’ parking permit, meaning they can park close to the office for free on the days they carshare

• Ride-pooling: 12 months from now, there are various services (similar to UberPool) where passengers heading in the same direction can travel in a private vehicle with a driver. As part of these journeys, you might be asked to walk up to 200m to make it easier and quicker to pick up and drop down at the end of your journey. The cost of the journey would be 50% of a taxi fare

BritainThinks 30

Note that when considering these options, participants were asked to imagine a future one year from now where there are no lockdown restrictions in place, and there is no social distancing.

Participants pointed out multiple issues with ride-sharing and felt it compared very unfavourably with driving their own private vehicle for routine journeys. Specifically, ride-sharing performed badly on the main drivers of mode choice, including:

• Convenience and speed: the route was indirect in order to pick up/drop off others which in turn lengthens overall journey time;

• Autonomy: including the loss of control over the route taken and timings, impact if others were running late or working late (particularly pertinent for commuters), and loss of flexibility due to having to coordinate journey times with others;

• Safety: there were concerns about sharing a vehicle with strangers (particularly with regards to women travelling alone, a view shared by male and female participants), as well as some concerns about the safety of other people’s driving (in the context of ride-sharing with colleagues);

• Comfort: social interaction, particularly when commuting, was unappealing for many, and the configuration of ridesharing in saloon cars was seen to present socially awkward situations and infringement of personal space (for example, if two groups of two want to share a vehicle, one person had to sit in the front on their own).

“It would frustrate the life out of me if someone was late and I was relying on them.” (North West, urban)

“Passenger safety – making sure the company knows the person driving the car and the kind of passengers they’re dealing with.” (North west, urban)

In addition, considerations relating to cost and the social aspect of ride-sharing were appealing for some but not all:

• Free parking for ride-sharers: commuters who did not already have access to free parking at work were interested in the idea of free parking for ride-sharers, and might be prompted to consider ride-sharing over taking public transport as a result; however, free parking on its own was not a sufficient incentive to overcome the practical concerns about switching away from driving a private vehicle as outlined above.

• Social aspect: some saw travelling with colleagues and having the chance to get to know them outside of the workplace appealing, and felt comparatively safer than ride-sharing with strangers. However, spending this time with colleagues was also felt to potentially create some social awkwardness – views about this were dependent on individual personality and preference, though participants in rural areas tended to be more positive about the social aspect of ride-sharing than those in urban areas.

These factors combined to make it difficult for participants to see how ride-sharing would work in practice, particularly in terms of routine journeys when the convenience and flexibility of driving their own private vehicle were highly valued. Furthermore, the logistics that would be required in order to make ride-sharing work – such as coordinating schedules with others or making new arrangements for school drop-offs – made ride-sharing seem like a hassle compared to driving in their private car.

BritainThinks 31

Despite this, some participants could see a role for ride-sharing when undertaking leisure trips, which were regarded as more flexible. In particular, ride-sharing could be a favourable option over alternatives when travelling in/out of cities or airports, as well as attending large events (such as concerts), where:

• Congestion was high;

• Public transport connections were poor;

• It was not possible or easy to park, or parking was expensive;

• The destination involved a social activity, particularly when participants wanted to drink alcohol and therefore did not want to drive;

• The trip could be shared with a friend, which felt safer than travelling alone and could also make the social interaction aspect less awkward;

• Ridesharing would be cheaper than a taxi, when that was the alternative.

“Commuting I wouldn’t want to ride-pool as I would rather be in my own space. Leisure I would consider if I was going out for drinks, because I wouldn’t drive and saves a bit of money.” (Yorkshire and the Humber, urban)

“It’s a bit too intimate with people that you don’t know whereas on a train you have a bit of a distance.” (North West, rural)

When considering potential ride-sharing interventions and how to implement them, there were some important considerations that participants felt would increase uptake. These included ensuring that:

• Safety concerns were addressed through the use of an app for driver/passenger ratings, gender matching for drivers and passengers, and having cameras in cars;

• Ride-sharing was incentivised by offering discounted entry to events or attractions if travelling there by ride-sharing, ensuring that this was a meaningful saving compared to the cost of a taxi or car parking;

• Workplace ride-sharing was introduced gradually – for example, encouraging use just one day a week (with incentives), in order to ease users in. This would give users an opportunity to become comfortable with ride-sharing before potentially increasing their commitment;

• Large vehicles such as people carriers were included in ride-sharing schemes to enable couples, families and groups of friends to benefit as well as reducing social awkwardness and allaying safety concerns related to sharing a confined space (small vehicle) with a stranger.

“People would probably need reassurances about the safety aspect and the practicalities.” (Northern Ireland, urban)

Summary of levers for encouraging use of driving alternatives

In summary, the research indicated that the most effective levers for encouraging use of driving alternatives were:

BritainThinks 32

1. Make parking convenient and cheap for sharers, and restricted and expensive for individual drivers.

2. Capitalise on the social benefits of shared travel (e.g. through leisure journeys), while minimising social risks (e.g. through ratings).

3. Focus on the everyday cost of driving to reduce number of journeys – as these force people to consider alternatives.

6.2. Electric Vehicles (EVs)

Barriers to driving EVs

Participants on the whole were relatively open to the idea of a transition to EVs, though imagined that this was still some time away. This linked to an underlying lack of urgency around EVs and a degree of passivity – participants broadly felt they would only start to consider EVs when they become more mainstream (and therefore cheaper). There were also a small number of participants (more likely to be ‘die-hard’ drivers) who said that they disliked the idea of EVs.

There were a number of barriers to the uptake of EVs, which include:

• Cost, with EVs currently too expensive to purchase (although participants anticipated that cost would reduce in the future as technology develops);

• Perceived loss of convenience, due to concerns about poor range and there being insufficient charging infrastructure available;

• Lack of familiarity as they were not yet widespread, resulting in low consideration;

• Being outside of people’s comfort zones, particularly for those who tend to buy from the same manufacturer or who only buy second-hand cars;

• Linked to this, low up-to-date knowledge about current EV technology, costs or performance (with most discussion being based on perception rather than engagement with the market);

• Uncertainty about the future rules about EVs and whether government would support them in the long term.

“I think that [the transition to EV] is inevitable… however, the prices will have to be more competitive as the initial cost of buying an electric car is much higher than [a] petrol or diesel car.” (South West, suburban)

“Are there sufficient recharging points? How could I have one installed at my house? If I move to a flat would I be able to recharge the car? How far could I drive without having to recharge? How long will it take to recharge?” (Yorkshire & the Humber, suburban)

BritainThinks 33

Levers for encouraging uptake of EVs While the environmental benefits of driving an EV were widely recognised, this only had an impact on a small number of people who were passionate about the environment. For most, the barriers to use strongly outweighed the perceived benefits. The small number of participants who expressed some interest in EVs tended to say that they suspected petrol and diesel cars were going to become more expensive in the near future.

Despite this, participants identified some ways in which these barriers could be overcome, which could prompt them to consider transitioning to EVs in the future. These included:

• Reducing up-front costs;

• Addressing range anxiety;

• Building more charging infrastructure;

• Making EVs feel more like the norm.

On the whole, the transition to EVs was considered to be inevitable, if far away. In order for participants to consider EVs as a relevant and accessible option, they needed to feel closer to the tipping point where EVs would start to become the norm, and EVs to be made more affordable at the point of purchase. It is worth nothing that transitioning to EVs was arguably a more palatable option for drivers (compared to a shift to public transport, for example) as they would have to make minimal changes to their current behaviour.

The research tested the following potential interventions to explore the extent to which participants thought they would impact their own behaviour, and what changes or features would be needed to actually encourage people to consider purchasing an EV:

• Feebate for EVs

• 2035/2040 ICE phase out*


Feebate for EVs

Participants in the qualitative research were shown some information about EVs before being asked to consider the following potential intervention option relating to a feebate for EVs (it should be noted that this potential intervention was developed for the purposes of the research and is not Government policy):

• Imagine the Government introduced a fee (between £500 and £1,500, depending on the CO2 emissions level) on newly purchased diesel or petrol cars. The money raised would then directly subsidise the purchase of fully electric and plug-in hybrid electric cars – so they would be cheaper to purchase. This would only apply to new purchases and would not apply to people who already own petrol or diesel cars. However, it would apply to the purchase of second-hand cars.

BritainThinks 34

Due to the existing barriers to transitioning to EVs – namely the lack of familiarity and being outside of participants’ comfort zones – it was difficult for participants to imagine purchasing an EV today, and initial responses to the idea of a feebate for EVs were broadly neutral as a result.

On consideration, an EV feebate had potential to partially overcome the cost barrier to a transition to EVs. However, it was unlikely to trigger a shift as, on its own, it did not go far enough to overcome some of the negative perceptions of EVs described above (which would prevent people from finding out about the costs of EVs). Furthermore, there was a tension or ‘catch 22’ in terms of timing – participants often said they would want to wait to buy a second-hand EV when they become affordable, though these vehicles were likely to be perceived as a less convenient option due to having a lower range.

There was also some opposition to the EV feebate from those who felt that it was ‘Government interference’ or ‘nanny-statism’ – with the scheme seen to potentially penalise people that may not have a choice but to purchase an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle. This was driven by the perceived high cost of EVs, even with the discount.

Despite this, an EV feebate could be effective in encouraging more people to consider purchasing EVs, particularly among the groups more interested in environmental benefits (such as younger people), or efficiency-saving (such as current car owners, on a lower income). It could also be effective among younger people who had not become accustomed to driving ICE vehicles.

“It would be ideal if it were possible to, by introducing this charge [Feebate], bring down EV prices to be in line with their petrol/diesel equivalents.” (North East, rural)

While a small subsidy on its own was unlikely to address the barriers to driving EVs, efforts to make EVs appear widespread – for example through offering (and clearly signposting) priority or free parking spaces for EVs, or putting EV charging infrastructure in prominent places such as workplaces and transport interchanges – could indirectly alleviate concerns and help accelerate the transition. In conjunction with this, key features of an intervention to encourage transition to EVs should focus on:

• Ensuring that EVs are genuinely affordable by applying the proposed discount to second-hand (as well as new) vehicles;

• Accounting for how expensive the ICE vehicle itself is (rather than carbon dioxide emissions only) when setting the additional fee, in order to be fairer to those on lower incomes;

• Including a trade-in bonus if trading in an ICE vehicle to buy an EV;

• Reassuring people that the EV infrastructure is in place, by investing in charge-point infrastructure, particularly in highly visible and accessible places.

“Another idea could be adding the cost as a percentage of the initial car cost, that way people who can’t afford high-value cars are paying less, whereas people who can afford gas guzzling sports cars can contribute a bit more.” (East Midlands, urban)

2035/2040 ICE phase out

BritainThinks 35

Please note that in between this research concluding and being published, the Prime Minister announced that the UK will end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030, and all new cars and vans will be required to be fully zero emission at the tailpipe from 2035. Between 2030 and 2035, new cars and vans can be sold if they have significant zero emission capability, which would include some plug-in and full hybrids. The definition of significant zero emission capability will be consulted on later this year.

Participants in the qualitative research were asked to consider the following information about the government’s commitment to phase out ICE vehicles:

• In the UK, the purchase of new petrol or diesel cars (including hybrid cars) is likely to be phased out in 2040 (N.B. for Scottish participants this read 2032).

• Imagine the government is going to bring this forward to 2035 – so you would no longer be able to buy a petrol or diesel car, including hybrid cars (or sell one for use), in 15 years’ time (N.B. for Scottish participants the year tested was 2030).

While the government’s commitment to phasing out ICE vehicles signalled a future shift to EVs, it seemed it would have limited impact on vehicle purchasing or leasing behaviour today. Awareness of the current commitment was low among participants, and both dates were often said to be too far away to factor into decision making about purchasing or leasing a vehicle in the near future. Non-drivers and those who had stronger views about climate change also commented that they did not think the deadline of 2035 (or 2030 for Scotland) was soon enough.

“This is still far enough away for me to purchase a diesel car and get the most out of it for 5-10 years before needing to buy an electric one.” (Wales, rural)

“[Knowing about the phase out date] may have a small impact on my decisions but I personally would wait until more cars are available from more manufacturers bringing the price down and a better range of vehicles to choose from.” (Northern Ireland, suburban)

A small number of drivers indicated that while they might be encouraged to eventually move out of their comfort zone to purchase an EV, they would not necessarily give up their ICE vehicle as this was seen as a safety net. More specifically, reasons for wanting to retain an ICE vehicle included having a fallback option for longer journeys due to EV range concerns or feeling attached to their ICE vehicle (in terms of performance or emotional attachment).

“I would buy an electric car as long as I can still have a second-hand petrol car too, which I can drive maybe less.” (West Midlands, suburban)

“A person like Steve [who owns a classic car], you aren’t going to change. If the Government pushes, they'll push back.” (South East, rural)

The quantitative research found that the majority of the general public were unsure about what the government’s proposal to phase out ICE vehicles meant for them. More than 50% of respondents with a driving license said that the proposal would have no impact, or they did not know what the impact would be. While 24% said that they will be more likely to purchase a battery electric vehicle, 12% say that they will be less likely to do the same – however, these patterns are similar for plug-in and non-plug in hybrid vehicles as well (Figure 8).

BritainThinks 36

Figure 8: Impact of the government’s proposal to end sales of new petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles by 2035/2040 on decisions to purchase or lease vehicles – by vehicle type

Q19. Thinking about your next car or van purchase or lease, how, if at all, might the government's proposal to end sales of new petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles by 2035? Base: All respondents who have a driving licence (n=1810) (not showing N/As)

Summary of levers for encouraging uptake of EVs

In summary, the research indicated that the most effective levers for encouraging purchase of EVs were:

1. Increase visibility of EVs to make them appear more widespread by offering priority or free parking for drivers of EVs, and visible charging infrastructure at workplaces and transport interchanges.

2. Ensure that EVs are genuinely affordable.

3. Increase awareness of developments in EV range to address concerns, particularly relating to longer journeys.

6.3. Public transport

Barriers to public transport

When deciding how to travel for routine journeys, public transport was regarded as a much less desirable option compared to driving. Public transport was considered a less convenient alternative to driving due to:

11%19% 22% 24%23%

13% 12% 12%

55% 56% 54% 53%

Buy/ lease petrol ordiesel vehicle

Buy/ lease nonplug-inhybrid vehicle

Buy/ lease plug-in hybrid vehicle

Buy/ lease batteryelectric vehicle

More likely to purchase/leaseLess likely to purchase/leaseNo impact/unsure

BritainThinks 37

• Routes being slow or indirect, or not covering the desired destination at all;

• Services being unreliable or unpredictable;

• The hassle of accessing the required stop/station, particularly if this was not within walking distance of home;

• Overcrowding on services, particularly during peak commute times;

• Inaccessibility of stations, trains and buses for disabled users;

• Different companies running services within an area, making complex journeys expensive as users had to purchase two tickets;

• The user being restricted by pre-defined timetables and routes.

“Our bus service is very poor: three buses a day at odd times. Unless you have your own vehicle, you’re stuck.” (Northern Ireland, rural)

Public transport was also seen as less safe than driving one’s own vehicle, particularly at night (in terms of personal security) as well as in the post-Covid-19 context (in terms of hygiene). Non-users (or low-frequency users) often described public transport as dirty, unpleasant or uncomfortable.

Some drivers thought of public transport as being more expensive than using their car, because the user had to pay for public transport at the point of use whereas they already owned and were paying for a car. However, it was possible that this was, for some, a post-hoc rationalisation for not wanting to use public transport, rather than a consideration they weighed up on a daily basis.

Across the sample, however, there was strong agreement that long-distance rail in the UK was expensive, and that cost was often a barrier to travelling by train more often. Leisure journeys by rail were often seen as more direct and more pleasant than driving, and where the connections aligned with their destinations, sometimes more convenient than driving.

“If the rail services were cheaper, I would definitely take public transport more often as I really enjoy this way of travelling but return tickets tend be out of my price range.” (West Midlands, urban)

Beyond this, public transport was often not a viable option for particular subsets of the population, namely those who:

• Lived in rural areas, who were significantly impacted by poor service coverage and unreliable or unpredictable service;

• Travelled with young children, luggage or equipment, all of which could be difficult to coordinate in the public transport context;

• Made multi-destination trips, such as the school run on the way to/from work, or home or site visits for work;

• Had mobility issues that made accessing public transport very difficult and sometimes impossible.

BritainThinks 38

“I use trains sometimes, but they are so unreliable. I’m disabled and it’s hard to get on. And there is no information about whether the train is coming or not. Sometimes they just fly past you and miss the stop out.” (East Midlands, rural)

Levers for encouraging use of public transport There were also participants in the sample who relied on public transport because they did not drive, and a proportion of participants said they preferred public transport to driving, because they found either driving or parking stressful. Older participants (especially in urban areas) were also positive about free or discounted travel passes.

“For me, it is convenient and avoids having the usual problem of finding suitable parking in the city.” (Scotland, suburban)

Drivers only used public transport in circumstances where driving was more difficult, when they did not have the option to drive, or for some leisure journeys (particularly longer distances or journeys made in a group).

“I’ll always be using a car and if I don’t have a car then my last resort would be public transport.” (North East, urban)

An additional benefit of using public transport was having the ability to do other activities while travelling, for example reading a book or watching a TV show. However, while this was seen as an added bonus of travelling in this way, it was not a reason for using public transport in and of itself.

In order to encourage drivers to consider using public transport, at least for some journeys, the most significant increase would come from infrastructural investment – introducing services into new areas and increasing the frequency and reliability in areas that are currently underserved. Aside from this, and in areas where public transport already exists, reducing cost would not really address existing barriers except for long-distance rail, and leisure journeys where people take longer to weigh up their options.

The following potential interventions were tested to explore the extent to which participants thought they would impact their own behaviour, and what changes or features would need to be in place to actually encourage the use of each:

• Demand Responsive Transport (DRT)

• Reducing the cost of public transport

• Luxury coach travel

Demand Responsive Transport (DRT)

Participants were shown an expert video describing DRT, covering the following key points:

• DRT is a form of public transport. Passengers can request journeys via an app, and buses then alter their routes based on these requests;

• Rather than working to a fixed route or timetable, this provides a more bespoke service;

• Buses are often smaller and more personalised, improving accessibility, offering more point-to-point journeys and helping individuals with disabilities;

BritainThinks 39

• Because it is bespoke, the cost will be higher than a fixed route bus service but lower than a taxi fare.

Reactions to DRT were positive, as it was seen to overcome many existing barriers to using public transport while also offering a tailored service for users. In particular, participants thought DRT would work well for those who currently experience the most barriers to using public transport, namely those who live in rural areas. DRT was seen by some rural participants to be a more realistic avenue than significant infrastructure development in their local area.

“I think that the bespoke service is a great and personalised service that helps those who do not have easy access to normal bus stops or have times on a timetable that suit them.” (Northern Ireland, rural)

“I like the fact that – if I understand it correctly – DRT enables you to book your place in advance so you would not have to worry about whether the bus will have enough space for you to get on it.” (South West, suburban)

When considering the DRT intervention and how to implement it, there were some important considerations that participants felt would increase uptake. These included ensuring that:

• It was not too expensive at the point of use (for example, local services could be publicly rather than privately owned);

• It did not excessively lengthen journey time, for example by diverting to pick up a large number of passengers at a time, particularly in rural areas;

• There was ample space for luggage/large item storage on board;

• Vehicles were accessible and had trained staff, with DRT services ideally co-designed by disabled people and those with mobility issues;

• There was ample space for wheelchair and pram users on board simultaneously, as these were seen as key groups who would benefit from DRT;

“DRT stood out for me, they seem to be reaching out to the not-so-regular public transport user.” (Northern Ireland, urban).

Reducing the cost of public transport for routine and short-distance leisure journeys

Participants were asked to consider the following potential intervention relating to reducing the cost of public transport for both routine and short-distance leisure journeys:

• £1 a day public transport: Imagine that, 12 months from now, ticket prices on public transport were drastically reduced, costing only £1 per day of travel. This one ticket would work across multiple modes of transport such as buses, metros, trains and trams. This cost reduction would be funded by the government.


Reducing the cost of public transport alone would not shift drivers away from their cars, as cost was not an important barrier to use among non-users, and cheap travel did not address the

BritainThinks 40

inconvenience and relative discomfort of travelling by public transport. This intervention would therefore likely lead to a:

• Very low impact on travel behaviour among those who were not currently using public transport, particularly for those who experienced barriers to access, or who rejected public transport.

• Potential increase in public transport use among those who already used it.

“What would be taxed in return? I’m more bothered about routes and frequency.” (East Midlands, rural)

Further, those who already reject public transport believed that reducing costs could put a strain on existing services, further exacerbating barriers to use including overcrowding, unreliable services, and lack of cleanliness.

Making public transport cheaper for routine journeys was unlikely on its own to be effective in encouraging non- and infrequent public transport users to start using public transport more often unless considerable improvements in connectivity and capacity were made first. Participants wanted to see:

• Improved public transport links, including better service coverage, more bus stops, improved timetables, and night services;

• ‘Express’ routes on popular services that were direct or had limited stops, including running these outside of peak commute times;

• Tracker apps allowing passengers to help with trip planning;

• More tables and free Wi-Fi provided on trains to make it easy to work while travelling.

Reducing the cost of public transport for long-distance leisure journeys

Participants were asked to consider the following potential intervention:

• 50% discount on rail: Imagine that, 12 months from now, to encourage ‘staycations’, ticket prices on rail are drastically reduced for travel around the UK. For the month of August 2021, imagine there is a 50% discount on all rail ticket prices.


Reducing the cost of intercity train travel had the potential to shift people away from their cars for long-distance trips. Rail was not an option for many as it was seen as a more expensive alternative compared to driving or taking domestic flights. Options for cheaper train travel could encourage long-distance leisure journeys to be made more sustainably, particularly for:

• Younger adults and parents of young children, who travelled in groups and for whom the cost of multiple rail tickets was more expensive than driving;

• Young people and those in lower SEG categories, who would be able to travel to places they would not have considered otherwise due to being too expensive to get to;

BritainThinks 41

• Business travellers who may otherwise use domestic flights.

“At work we have a corporate discounted fare on the East and West Coast mainlines to/from London to Edinburgh and Glasgow respectively. It’s been a massive success and our rail spend and tickets on London now outweighs air.” (Scotland, urban)

When considering reducing the cost of rail travel for long-distance leisure journeys, there were some important considerations that participants felt would increase uptake. These included ensuring that:

• Families were catered for with reduced-cost family tickets as well as designated seating/carriages where there was more space and storage;

• Pricing was consistent and reflected the journey/distance being travelled, irrespective of the time of year;

• Guaranteed seat reservations were offered in order to improve comfort, particularly for those with young children or with mobility issues;

• Services were genuinely accessible, including the provision of staff to help disabled passengers through stations and on to trains;

• Tickets could be used for free or discounted travel at the destination, given that people would not have their car.

“Going out on a family ticket: ‘day rover’, incorporating bus and train journeys.” (Yorkshire and the Humber, rural)

“Discounted car hire once you arrive at the destination. I think discounts are great for days out and commuters but for people wanting to go on holiday getting to a final destination – for example, a family holiday at a caravan park in Cornwall – how do they get there from the train station?” (South West, urban)

Luxury coach travel

Participants were asked to consider the following information about luxury coach travel:

• Imagine that, 12 months from now, there has been a growth in coach companies offering more luxury travel across the UK and into Europe;

• There would be lots of direct routes available, meaning you wouldn’t need to change to get to your final destination;

• Coaches would leave from main stations as well as more local departure points;

• There would be different options available – ranging from basic, cheap options to more luxury options with more space and better facilities on board;

• While costs would vary, travelling by coach would be cheaper than travelling by train or Eurostar.

BritainThinks 42


More extensive, improved luxury coach travel was an appealing option for mid-length journeys. With current route connectivity by coach across the UK perceived to be poor, participants were interested in trying new routes and services. In particular, delivering routes east-west in England as well as routes throughout the devolved nations was appealing, as it would address existing gaps in rail coverage.

“If it was more luxurious and had more space then I would be more likely… if I had the time on my hands and it was comfortable, I might consider it.” (North West, urban)

“I hate coaches as they are at the moment. But if you could do them in a more ‘luxury’ way, with more leg room, a table – you don’t mind if it takes a little bit longer.” (North West, rural)

This potential intervention would be particularly appealing to:

• Younger adults, as they may already travel by coach to save on costs;

• Those who have mobility issues, because services could be made bespoke to their needs and they could book specific services and be assured of accessible vehicles or support staff.

Furthermore, the ‘luxury’ aspect of travelling by coach in this way would serve to challenge current views of public transport as uncomfortable, which was a key barrier to uptake. Shifting perceptions of public transport towards being comfortable for mid-length journeys could help to drive consideration of public transport for shorter or more routine journeys as well.

However, there were some lingering concerns from participants relating to cleanliness, the behaviour of other passengers, and longer journey times compared to alternatives like driving.

“[Coach] would be good but only as a luxury, I wouldn’t want a budget coach with one toilet and lots of passengers.” (East Midlands, rural)

When considering luxury coach travel and how to implement it, there were some important considerations for inclusion that participants felt would increase uptake. These included ensuring that:

• Comfort was considered a critical aspect of the experience, including having accessible toilets and rest breaks for longer journeys (especially for disabled passengers);

• There were designated ‘adults only’ and ‘family-friendly’ services;

• Convenience was addressed by including pick up/drop off at local stations as well as major interchanges.

“I’m sure the other people who have paid luxury prices do not want little kids screaming around their feet.” (North East, rural)

BritainThinks 43

Summary of levers for encouraging use of public transport

In summary, the research indicated that the most effective levers for encouraging use of public transport were:

1. Build capacity and improve coverage of public transport services, particularly in rural areas, and create viable alternatives to fill any gaps.

2. Establish public transport as a convenient and comfortable option for mid- and long-distance leisure travel.

3. Ensure public transport is accessible by designing it in collaboration with those who have mobility issues, or who travel with young children.

6.4. Active travel

Barriers to active travel

There was limited consideration of active travel (walking or cycling) as a mode of transport, with these activities predominantly seen as recreational.

“We loved walking and cycling during lockdown – get away from everything, get out into nature and do some fun activities too.” (North West, rural)

Similar to other alternatives to driving, walking and cycling were broadly considered less convenient than driving due to practical barriers to use. In particular, for those who:

• Lived in rural areas, who typically had to travel further to reach their destination, with implications on journey length and also looking ‘fresh’ on arrival;

• Travelled with young children, as this is difficult to coordinate and could lengthen journey time due to walking or cycling at a slower pace;

• Travelled with luggage or equipment as, at best, these items would be a hassle to carry and, at worst, too difficult to transport in this way at all;

• Travelled during the day for work, for example, home or site visits, due to the distances that need to be travelled and subsequent time taken out of the workday to do this, as well as wanting to look ‘fresh’ when arriving at meetings or appointments;

• Had mobility issues and did not feel capable of participating in active travel options for the distances required.

• Were lower SEG, as the cost of purchasing a cycle was more likely to be prohibitive, and who, particularly in urban areas, were more likely to live further away from their workplace or the city centre.

“Great if you lived in an environment which has no travel restrictions or congestion, reasonable weather, cycle lanes… but this is not going to happen in Northern Ireland.” (Northern Ireland, suburban)

BritainThinks 44

Active travel was also considered weather-dependent and, while some could imagine trying it during the summer months, most of the time it was not seen as an appealing or realistic option.

Cycling

There were additional barriers specific to cycling that prevented consideration of this mode of travel for routine or leisure journeys.

Road safety was a fundamental barrier to cycling. When participants talked about road safety, they meant:

• Sharing the road with cars and large vehicles;

• Heavy traffic;

• Poor road quality including potholes and insufficient lighting, as well as high speeds of cars in rural areas;

• Inadequate cycling infrastructure, and ‘partial’ cycling lanes that stop suddenly in dangerous places;

• Lack of confidence in cycling skills.

While safety concerns were shared by almost everyone (including cyclists), drivers had a keen sense of the vulnerability of cyclists when they were sharing road space with cars, particularly if they had been involved in any collisions with cyclists themselves. Furthermore, among some who had tried cycling in the past, bad experiences had a big impact and put them off trying again.

“Most urban areas have very inadequate cycle lanes, making the experience of cycling in a busy city pretty scary and risky.” (East Midlands, urban)

“We have a bicycle track in some parts but in others we don’t, and in those parts it can be quite scary.” (Scotland, suburban)

The quantitative research found that road safety concerns were the top reason for not cycling more amongst infrequent cyclists, with 41% of those who cycle less often than 1-3 times per week citing road safety concerns as a reason for not cycling more. While road safety was the biggest barrier across the full sample, concern did increase with age from 34% of infrequent cyclists aged 18-34, to 41% of those aged 35-54 and 46% aged 55+ (Figure 9).

BritainThinks 45

Figure 9: Top reasons for not cycling more (among those who cycle less often than 1-3 times per week)

Q8. We would now like to ask about cycling as a mode of transport. Below is a list of reasons a person may give for not cycling more than they already do. Please select all that apply to you. Base: All respondents who ride a cycle less often than 1-3 times a week (n=2,038)

Having confidence in the skills required to cycle on the road was also linked to safety, and the quantitative research showed that this was particularly the case for women with almost a third (31%) saying they were not confident, compared to only 12% of men.

Concerns about road safety must be overcome before cycling could be considered an option.

“If it was safe, I feel I would cycle or walk.” (South West, rural)

Practical barriers to cycling were secondary to safety, but still extensive and included:

• Logistical issues, for example not having secure access to showering facilities at the destination, impracticalities when needing to transport equipment or travel in a group, including with children, and a lack of cycle storage options, either in private spaces or on-street;

• On-street cycle storage and stands being seen as insecure, with participants perceiving a high risk of cycle theft even when cycle storage is provided and the cycle is locked. While this concern was expressed regardless of how long the cycle would be left unattended, it was particularly pertinent for those without access to dedicated cycle storage facilities at their workplace or home, who would needto lock cycles at on-street stands for prolonged periods of time (such as during the workday or overnight).

“I don’t cycle there at the minute as there is nowhere to lock the bike up.” (Scotland, suburban)

21%

22%

22%

23%

31%

36%

41%

Bike broken/ don't own a bike

I can ride a bike, but I'm not confident doing so

No interest in cycling

Lack of cycle paths

The weather

Too much traffic/ traffic too fast

Road safety concerns

Top reasons for not cycling more (among those who cycle less often than 1-3 times per week)

BritainThinks 46

In addition to strong concerns about safety, there were also negative connotations relating to cycling, with non-cyclists seeing it as exclusionary to new entrants and therefore ‘not for them’. This position undermined their motivation to even consider cycling as an option. Factors that fed into this included:

• Identity: strong identity as male, lycra-wearing and sporty meant that many could not imagine themselves cycling as they would not ‘fit in’ or be able to ‘keep up’; this was particularly pertinent amongst women and those who were older;

• Bad reputation: those who drove for routine journeys (and didn’t cycle) in particular often saw cyclists as dangerous and aggressive, and often felt angry about cycling and cyclists.

“I am open to the idea of cycling to work but still do not think this is the best choice for me… I don’t think cyclists or drivers always behave as they should and stick to the rules of the road. Additionally, you are very vulnerable cycling.” (South West, urban)

Levers for encouraging active travel Many could see benefits to active travel, particularly in relation to health and cost. For those in urban areas where congestion was high, walking or cycling could also be a faster alternative to driving in some instances, particularly for routine journeys at peak times.

However, these perceived personal benefits were firmly outweighed by the barriers to active travel, particularly in relation to cycling. Despite this, participants in the qualitative research identified some ways in which these barriers could be overcome, which might encourage them to consider cycling in the future. These included:

• Drastic improvements in safety – through cycling lanes that were separated from traffic, well-planned, well-lit and continuous;

• Building skills and confidence in cycling;

• Shift in the identity and perceptions of ‘who can be a cyclist’.

“I would want a separate cycling and walking area and an actual barrier for cars for safety reasons. The reason why I would never choose cycling on roads in my area right now is because cars are so close to you and as a cyclist you would still be on the main road with all the cars.” (Northern Ireland, urban)

“There are a couple of small towns nearby that can be accessed via bike however the only options are dirt tracks or busy roads so at the moment I tend to avoid especially if out as a family so if there was a dedicated car free route it would encourage me to go this way as it would be safe, direct and hopefully good cycling terrain (flat).” (Scotland, rural)

The research tested the following potential interventions to explore the extent to which participants thought they would impact their own behaviour, and what changes or features would be needed to actually encourage behaviour change:

• E-bike purchase and ‘try before you buy’ schemes

• Low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs)

BritainThinks 47

E-bike purchase and ‘try before you buy’ schemes

Participants were shown some information about e-bikes before being asked to consider the following potential intervention options relating to reducing the cost of purchasing e-bikes and having the option to ‘try before you buy’:

• Option A: 12 months from now, your employer/university has offered you a scheme for a 50% discount on the purchase of a new e-bike. With this discount, a bike will cost about £700.

• Option B: 12 months from now, your employer/university has offered you an interest-free loan to purchase a new e-bike. The average cost will be about £1000, spread over two years (so you will repay about £42 per month).

• Try before you buy: for both of these schemes, you would be able to loan an e-bike for a month for free to test it out. Many e-bike retailers currently run a short-term ‘try before you buy’ cycle-scheme. For example, Evans Cycles lets you try an e-bike for 1-2 days if you pay £50-£100. When you return the bike in good condition, they give you a voucher of that same value.


The most substantial barrier to using e-bikes was that they do not address participants’ fundamental concerns about road safety. Further, when participants found out more about e-bikes, these safety concerns were actually exacerbated; e-bikes were perceived to be less safe than conventional cycles because they could travel so fast, which was considered frightening for users as well as having safety implications when travelling near pedestrians or cars. Participants often complained that e-bikes (along with other electric assisted options like e-scooters) were unregulated and that the ambiguity surrounding their use was a problem in UK urban areas.

“I have great concerns about unregulated e-bike and e-scooter use, without tests, insurance, mandatory helmets.” (South East, suburban)

Beyond safety, secondary barriers to uptake of e-bikes included that they were:

• Not seen to offer exercise, negating one of the few existing motivators to take up cycling;

• Perceived to be heavy, exacerbating logistical concerns around secure cycle storage, particularly for those who live in flats;

• Expensive and therefore more vulnerable to theft, exacerbating existing concerns around secure storage;

• Unfamiliar and outside of participants’ comfort zone, meaning that consideration of them is low; the quantitative research found that while 92% of the general public had heard of e-bikes, only 4% claim to know a lot about them (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Claimed level of knowledge about electric bikes

BritainThinks 48

Q2. We'd now like to understand your familiarity with a few different types of transport methods. First of all, an electric bike or bicycle is one that is assisted by an electric motor when you pedal. How much, if anything, would you say you know about electric bikes? Base: All respondents (n=2,305) (not showing ‘Don’t know’)

When considering the proposed intervention options themselves, assuming safety concerns had been addressed, the proposed e-bike purchase schemes were still felt to be too significant a financial commitment, particularly because e-bikes were not anticipated to be used as regularly as a private car.

• Option A: the discount offered in this option was considered insufficient in making an e-bike affordable enough to consider it.

• Option B: monthly instalments of £42 a month were considered high and difficult to balance with other monthly spending commitments, while 2 years was seen as a long time to be ‘locked in’ to paying off the e-bike purchase.

• Try before you buy: while the idea of trialling an e-bike was popular in theory, there was criticism over having to pay a high deposit of £50-100 which would then be received back in vouchers rather than cash, with uptake of this scheme seen as high risk unless the person trialling the e-bike was already sure that they would go on to purchase.

When considering how to implement purchase or ‘try before you buy’ schemes for e-bikes, it is important to note that these options were most likely to be appealing and have the potential to trigger take-up only among those who were already considering cycling or e-bikes.

However, for most, cost was secondary to safety concerns, which must be addressed before an e-bike will be considered. In order to widen the consideration pool, key features to encourage uptake of e-bikes should focus on:

4%

33%

36%

18%

4%

Hadn't heard about them before now

Know hardly anything but I've heard of them

Know a little

Know a fair amount

Know a lot

Claimed level of knowledge about electric bikes

BritainThinks 49

• Building confidence in cycling skills through offers for cycle maintenance and proficiency training, as well as offering ‘try before you buy’ for free;

• Shifting the cyclist identity by using the marketing of the scheme to change the image of ‘who can be a cyclist’ and to explain the benefits of e-bikes;

• Establishing social communities of cyclists, where people can meet others, share tips and advice, and build confidence in their cycling skills together;

• Encouraging employers participating in the scheme to invest in cycle-friendly facilities including showers, secure cycle parking, and lockers;

• Increasing awareness and understanding of the benefits e-bikes can have around making cycling less strenuous and therefore making longer journeys less tiring, particularly among groups who may not consider themselves typical ‘cyclists’ such as those who were older or less physically able.

“If I knew I could jump on an e-bike home with proper cycle lanes, and the price was similar to the train, I would jump on the e-bike, I think it would be more fun than waiting.” (South West, suburban)

Low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs)

Participants were shown information describing LTNs, covering the following key points:

• In low traffic neighbourhoods, space for vehicle traffic has been reduced from certain groups of roads, to increase space for direct pedestrian and cycle routes. Everyone can still drive to their own home; deliveries can still be made, and local bus routes are still in operation. However, local journeys may take a bit longer by car as drivers cannot always take a direct route. These changes mean that cycling (including using adapted cycles), walking and using a wheelchair becomes faster and safer;

• There are also lots of new cycle lanes in the area, connecting your neighbourhood to other areas (and connecting rural areas to towns). The new cycle lanes are separated from the road on busy routes, which means that cyclists do not have to share the road with cars. However, it also means that space for cars has been reduced – for example, because a driving lane would be given over to create cycle lanes.

LTNs were supported in principle, and there was broad recognition of the benefits, particularly around increased safety for pedestrians and children. There was also a fair amount of support for them from non-drivers, and a wide range of participants said that they would feel much safer cycling or walking locally if such measures were in place in their area.

“All local journeys where I don’t have loads to carry – I’d do this now, but I don’t feel safe cycling on roads and the cycle tracks aren’t connected. I’d also use this for commute [sic], when I can (no pick-ups/far visits), as long as cycleways are connected.” (North East, rural)

However, there were strong concerns about the practical implications and a subsequent hesitation to see LTNs introduced in participants’ own areas. These concerns included that:

BritainThinks 50

• Displaced traffic could exacerbate congestion in areas that otherwise experienced a low volume of traffic, particularly when LTNs were not originally designed in, which could be frustrating for drivers (and could cause more road rage);

• Emergency vehicles might not be able to move through freely, resulting in longer response times;

• People with mobility issues could be adversely affected, particularly if they could no longer access their destination directly by car or if walking distances increased;

• Tourism in some places could suffer as a result of visitors not being able to access the town centre as easily or finding it difficult to navigate urban areas by car;

• It could be difficult to get the balance right, as it could cause too much traffic in urban areas but there would be ‘no point’ in implementing LTNs in rural areas;

• The LTNs might not be well-planned or might not suit the roads in the local area.

“I would like to [cycle] at my own leisure not feeling I’m being forced to do this. I would still like to make my own choices by driving and if I wanted to cycle as leisure then I would. I wouldn’t want any of these changes to be made in my area.” (North East, urban)

“I currently walk as part of my daily exercise since the lockdown as a preference to restarting my gym membership. I would love to feel safer and have a better environment to walk in and for the number of these large diesel vehicles especially to be reduced. However, as stated previously, the current infrastructure is insufficient to support such a change.” (Yorkshire and the Humber, suburban)

“I think it’s a good idea however you don’t mention disabled drivers – would there still be disabled parking bays? It can be tricky with disabled and older people, who find it hard to walk. I think that needs to be taken into account, for someone who’s got a wheelchair, a lot of people who use wheelchairs drive, it would be very hard if they didn’t have accessible parking nearby.” (Yorkshire and the Humber, rural)

LTNs were also divisive – while some participants felt positive about them and thought they could encourage them to walk or cycle to the local shops more often, rather than drive, others felt extremely negative about them.

While there was a risk that any indication that LTNs were ineffective would stoke frustration among those who are impacted, they could be positive if the local community had ownership over how they are implemented. With this in mind, important considerations for implementing LTNs included:

• Building LTNs into the design of new developments (so that they would be planned in rather than perceived as an ‘after-thought’);

• Focusing on closing very narrow roads that were already ill-suited to traffic;

• Designing LTNs to enable emergency services to pass through, and accessibility for those with mobility issues who may not be able to take up active travel alternatives to reach their destination if there was no longer direct access by car;

BritainThinks 51

• Using closures to create community spaces, with support particularly high if there was a social element involved with the space created – such as street installations of artwork or flowers, additional green space, and terrace-style seating areas for local cafes and restaurants;

• Adopting a seasonal model where LTNs were in place when there were likely to be more cyclists around – avoiding residents feeling frustrated that they are underused;

• Consulting local residents to understand how best to implement LTNs in their area.

Summary of levers for encouraging active travel

In summary, the research indicated that the most effective levers for encouraging more active travel were:

1. Addressing safety concerns is key, and can be done by ensuring cycle lanes and footpaths are separated from traffic, continuous and with planned routes and linkages, and well lit;

2. Encourage cyclists to come together as communities, to help overcome the narrow image associated with cyclists as well as providing a resource for new cyclists to build skills and confidence, and to provide a social motivation to cycle;

3. Promote the community and social benefits of LTNs to help tip the scales so more people see them as a benefit to their local area.

6.5. Aviation

Expectations for future travel

The quantitative research found that participants mostly expected there to be minimal change in how often they flew in 12 months’ time (27% for short haul flights, 21% for long haul) or expected to be flying less (22% for short haul flights, 19% for long haul) (Figure 11).

People aged 18-34 anticipate the most variation in their flying patterns, being significantly more likely than average to expect to fly short and long haul more often (13%; 12%) as well as less often (26%; 23%) in 12 months’ time. Similarly, those in higher SEGs (ABC1) also anticipate more variation in their flying patterns than average, being significantly more likely to expect to fly short and long haul more often (10%; 9%) as well as less often (26%; 22%).

Figure 11: Anticipated change in flying in 12 months’ time compared with 2019

I expect to fly… Short haul flights Long haul flights

NET: More 7% 6%

NET: Less 22% 19%

A lot more 2% 2%

A little more 6% 5%

BritainThinks 52

About the same 27% 21%

A little less 8% 6%

A lot less 14% 13%

Don’t know 13% 15%

Not applicable 30% 40%

Q16. We'd now like to think about travel in the future. In 12 months' time, do you expect that you will use each of the following modes of transport more, less or about the same amount as you did in 2019 (before Covid19)? Base: All respondents (n= 2305) NB Numbers do not add up to 100% due to rounding.

In the qualitative research, participants expected to reduce the amount they flew in the next 12 months due to concerns post-Covid-19, with some cynicism that airlines will do enough to protect passengers from Covid-19 as well as in terms of their ability to travel freely, without quarantine. Some also anticipated increases in the cost of flights, which made some (who tended to be on a lower income and to take long haul flights less regularly) expect to fly less in a year’s time.

Views about the impact of Covid-19 on flying were mixed, and were predominantly aligned to individual attitudes towards risk and socio-economic circumstances:

• Some had concerns about hygiene and the view that airlines would want to fill planes, potentially at the expense of best-practice social distancing or cleaning;

• Some had reservations about last-minute rule changes and consequently being ‘trapped’ abroad, or unable to work if subject to quarantine upon return to the UK (particularly those on a lower income and those who could not work remotely), resulting in reticence to book travel in the immediate future and hesitation about booking trips for next year;

• Occasionally, participants (more likely to be ABC1) said they felt very comfortable with flying and thought they would probably fly more next year to ‘make up’ for a lack of travel abroad this year. Some of these participants had already been on a few flights since Covid-19 began.

“Personally, I enjoy our breaks, but would think twice about being in the confinements of an aircraft for long haul wearing a mask - a nightmare. I’d rather stay in the UK currently.” (Wales, urban)

“I don't expect there to be a vaccine available in 12 months’ time so I would not expect to travel internationally especially if infection rates are still high.” (South East, urban)

Beyond this, most participants in the qualitative discussions expected that the cost of flights would increase as a result of the fallout from Covid-19, namely airlines trying to recover lost revenue as well as lower numbers on flights. This was considered inevitable and something that consumers would be resigned to accept. However, there were a few participants who were less sure about costs and thought (or hoped) that airlines would reduce costs to attract more customers back onto planes.

BritainThinks 53

“I think the prices will skyrocket but everyone will still travel for the sake of being able to travel.” (Northern Ireland, suburban)

“The businesses that do remain will have to recoup their losses so the cost of hospitality and flights will go up.” (East midlands, rural)

Responsibility for reducing the environmental impact of flying Travelling by air was the default option for journeys where flying was seen as the fastest and often the cheapest way to travel (especially for short-haul journeys or domestic travel), and where viable alternatives were not thought to exist (for long-haul journeys). Participants that flew rarely considered the environment when planning trips by plane. The key factors they considered include:

• Affordability: this was top of mind, with flying often the cheapest option especially when compared to train, which was considered extremely expensive (for travel within Europe or domestically);

• Journey time: limited holiday time often meant that faster journeys were often prioritised, prompting air travel over rail.

There were a number of barriers to participants considering more sustainable travel options, including:

• Strong desire to travel abroad: participants wanted to be able to travel on holiday and felt entitled to do so;

• Norms and habit: many people flew regularly out of habit, for example always visiting family abroad twice yearly, with limited consideration about it;

• Low consideration of environmental impact of flying: flyers tended not to think or know much about the impact of flying on carbon emissions;

• Underestimating personal impact: participants saw themselves as lower contributors than average (for example, citing business travellers as ‘the problem’, and seeing their own behaviour of taking several leisure flights a year as relatively low);

• No ‘green’ alternatives to flying for longer, international journeys;

• Anticipation of zero carbon flight technology on the horizon: there was an assumption that there would be a technological solution, negating the need for individuals to change their behaviour.

“It’s just something I love to do, and the environment is the last thing I think about when it comes to travelling.” (North West, urban)

“I care about the environment, but I care about my holiday more.” (East, urban)

As a result, participants did not feel that there was much they could do to opt for environmental alternatives to flying, nor were they particularly motivated to do so. This was true even among those who felt strongly about the environment and may already cycle and avoid driving cars.

When asked who was responsible for reducing the environmental impact of air travel, there was a strong sense that government and industry could do more than the individual.

BritainThinks 54

Broadly speaking, the role for government was seen to be:

• Restricting frequent flyers through taxation or through an air mile ‘cap’;

• Taxing all fares;

• Banning private jets;

• Funding research for greener aviation technology.

Meanwhile, the role of the aviation industry was seen to include:

• Investing in technology or more sustainable fuel options;

• Implementing green initiatives such as carbon offsetting, reforestation and donating profits to other ‘green’ causes;

• Ensuring that flights are full.

Despite this, participants on the whole were broadly open to a necessary push towards more environmentally sustainable behaviour, and said they would be willing to accept a small tax on flights to achieve these goals. However, the idea was often raised that tax could be unfair if it resulted in those on a lower income being priced out of international travel.

BritainThinks 55

7. Transport futures

When prompted with information about the environmental impact of transport,

participants agreed it is important for transport behaviours to be more sustainable.

However, most felt unable or unwilling to make sustainable decisions independently

and felt changes to infrastructure and support from government would be needed to

push people to change their behaviours.

Ultimately, participants wanted decision-making about future transport to ensure that

people were able to use greener transport, wanted to use greener transport, and that

any changes were long-term and sustainable.

7.1. Preferences for the future of transport

The research tested three different future visions for 2040 with participants, as a way to understand participants’ preferences and priorities for the future of transport. While full versions of these future scenarios can be found in Appendix 10.5, below is a brief outline of the three different scenarios tested:

• The car is king: In this future scenario, cars become even more popular as people avoid public and shared spaces;

• 15- minute communities: This is a future scenario where widespread flexible working and the revitalising of local shops and services leads to less need to travel long distances, and more reliance on walking and cycling around smaller community hubs;

• Digital life: In this future scenario, most things are done online, people travel much less often, and use apps to order on-demand services.

Through exploration of the future scenarios and discussions about participants’ ideal transport future, it emerged that adults and young people wanted the following outcomes (listed in order of commonality of view):

Better public transport: Many participants wanted improved accessibility, frequency and comfort of public transport.

Fewer cars: There were positive responses to a future with low congestion, lower air pollution and safer places for families and communities.

Social interaction: Participants wanted a future with high levels of social interaction and wanted this to be supported by transport where possible.

“A community-centric approach would benefit everyone, including a reduction in crime as people start to care a bit more about their communities.” (North West, urban)

Healthy lifestyles: The importance of physical activity and mental health had sharpened in response to Covid-19, and participants wanted the future transport system to contribute to this.

BritainThinks 56

Shorter travel times: Participants also valued shorter travel times leading to more time being spent productively, or for leisure activities.

“I would love to have more time, to do other things with the time that would normally be spent travelling.” (South West, suburban)

Variety of transport modes: Many participants also responded positively towards the ready availability of a wide variety of transport modes including cycles, e-bikes and e-scooters.

On the other hand, participants also had a really clear idea of what they wanted to avoid:

Congestion: There was a strong dislike of a highly car-centric future due to concerns about heavy traffic and congestion, overall safety, and impact on the environment in terms of pollution and green spaces. There was also concern about the impact that travelling by car (as opposed to more active forms of transport) could have on people’s physical health.

Social isolation: Participants wanted to avoid a highly individualistic transport future where transport contributes to social isolation, and participants disliked the notion of travelling less and being more online. There was also a sense that this could lead to a society of more selfish and less trusting people, and an increase in crime rates. Participants were particularly concerned about the impact of social isolation on mental health in general, and about the impact of social isolation on younger and older people specifically.

“I don’t want to live my life in the digital way […] I wouldn’t want to work purely online. I would want an element of social community.” (West Midlands, urban)

Insular communities: There was also some concern that a future with ‘15-minute communities’ and less long-distance travel could lead to insular communities, with the risk that people become less open and potentially more ‘narrow-minded’. Those living in more urban areas and are used to travelling were concerned that working within 15 minutes of your home would mean areas become less diverse, and that there would be fewer opportunities available. People living in London were particularly concerned about smaller communities and fewer opportunities.

“While I like the transport options and working closer to home, I don’t like the idea of rarely going beyond 15 minutes travel from your local area in a month. Once Covid-19 is a memory I am looking forward to getting out and exploring the world again.” (West Midlands, urban)

It is worth noting that at the same time as discussing these aspirations, participants also described being relatively unwilling to change their own behaviour. This highlights a disconnect between the outcomes that participants want at a macro level, and an appreciation of the individual changes to behaviour needed to achieve those outcomes.

Moreover, participants’ preferences for the future were clearly linked to their experiences of Covid-19. During Covid-19 and the ensuing lockdown period, people experienced a taster of a more digital world with less social interaction. As a result, there has been an increase in appreciation of and desire for social contact. Further, after having been confined to their homes and local areas for many months, there is a widespread desire to travel further afield, as soon as Covid-19 restrictions allow.

BritainThinks 57

Attitudes towards mobility hubs

As part of attitudes towards and preferences for future transport, the research also tested the concept of mobility hubs with participants. Participants were provided with the following definition of mobility hubs:

‘Mobility hubs would be placed near transport interchanges such as train or bus stations and in housing developments, so they are near where people live. There would be lots of different types of transport there, making it easy for people to continue their journey in a variety of ways e.g.

• Parking spaces for shared hire electric cars, with lots of charge-points

• Hire e-bikes and adapted e-bikes

• Hire e-scooters

• Accessible taxis

• Secure bike storage

• Ride-sharing meeting points

• Local buses

• Shops, cafes and services’

Overall, mobility hubs were positively received. Participants were most positive about the flexibility and variety that mobility hubs provided. Participants also liked the idea of having access to new modes of transport that they would want to try, e.g. car clubs and e-scooters. A small number of participants also reported having had positive experiences with mobility hubs in other European cities, which also contributed to their positivity.

“I think it’s a really great way to bring communities together whilst benefiting the environment.” (South East, rural)

“The fact that I can easily and securely store my bike there before getting on with another leg of my travel is very appealing. Having so many options on how to continue that journey is very good.” (South West, suburban)

Spontaneously, participants also identified various ideas which could encourage people to use mobility hubs. These included:

• Shops and local cafés: some felt the inclusions of shops and cafés could function as central meeting points and could be a great way to build a sense of community;

• Delivery pick-up location: Others felt that mobility hubs could function as a pick-up location, instead of parcels being sent to individual homes. This was felt to be both more efficient and more environmentally friendly;

• App: Participants felt that an app showing costs, estimated times for journey length and an indication of the environmental impact across transport modes could also encourage people to use mobility hubs.

However, some participants had concerns about how mobility hubs would work in practice. Specifically, participants had questions about how they would be able to ensure they would

BritainThinks 58

have access to a mode of transport once arriving at the mobility hub. Others had concerns about what would happen with the e-bike or hire car once they got home.

Participants in more rural areas had concerns about being able to access mobility hubs, and some felt that having to drive to the mobility hub would defeat the purpose of them. However, others felt that this could work well, especially if there was free parking offered near the hub. Those in more rural areas also had concerns about the impact of mobility hubs on the landscape, and worried that the introduction of mobility hubs would remove green spaces.

Those in urban areas had some concern about where mobility hubs would be placed, given already crowded city centres. Further to this, participants in Bristol were concerned that any potential expansion of the central stations to accommodate mobility hubs would contribute to already high levels of ‘chaos’ and congestion in the city centre.

“I would avoid a ‘turn up and go’ approach as this could cause chaos in busy times when demand perhaps outstrips supply.” (North West, rural)

7.2. The environment and future transport

Knowledge and awareness of the environmental impact of transport

Participants were presented with information about the UK government’s commitment to reach Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and by 2045 in Scotland. Information was also provided about the relative contribution to emissions made by transport compared to other sectors, and how that breaks down by transport mode. Below are the two charts that were presented to participants (Figures 12 and 13):

Figure 12: Chart showing the carbon dioxide greenhouse emissions for different sectors in 2018

Source: Decarbonising Transport: Setting the Challenge, p.12, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878642/decarbonising-transport-setting-the-challenge.pdf

BritainThinks 59

Figure 13: Chart showing the carbon dioxide greenhouse emissions by transport mode in 2017

Source: Decarbonising Transport: Setting the Challenge, p.12, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878642/decarbonising-transport-setting-the-challenge.pdf

While participants had some awareness of the environmental impact of transport, there was widespread surprise at the extent of the impact transport has compared to other sectors e.g. manufacturing. There was particularly low awareness of the environmental impact of cars and taxis compared to other modes of transport. There was also very little knowledge or awareness of the government having made a legally binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.

“I had no idea about the net zero thing – that was news to me.” (East Midlands, rural)

“I’m shocked that the problem is mostly coming from cars and taxis. I had no idea of that at all – I thought planes and manufacturing would have had much more environmental impact.” (Northern Ireland, rural)

“I had no idea about the information on emissions and where they came from - I had no idea tackling transport would take a big chunk of emissions away.” (Yorkshire and the Humber, suburban)

Attitudes towards sustainable travel behaviours

Once prompted with this information, participants agreed that it was important for transport behaviours to be sustainable and wanted to be able to make ‘greener’ travel decisions. Ideally, participants wanted sustainable travel choices to be as easy and natural as recycling was for them now.

However, participants identified many barriers to making sustainable travel decisions. These barriers primarily focused on a lack of suitable alternatives to driving, and are listed below in order of commonality of view:

BritainThinks 60

• Driving was the most convenient, safest and most pleasant mode of travel. As a result, drivers would need a strong nudge away from the car to switch;

• Many had very limited viable alternatives in terms of accessible public transport. For participants to be able to change their current travel behaviours, alternatives must be available;

• The infrastructure for safe active travel was inadequate. The environment and context needed to reduce friction to try out alternatives.

As such, many felt unable or unwilling to make sustainable travel decisions independently, without changes to infrastructure and support from government.

Fundamentally, this was underpinned by the fact that when it came to travel, people had individualistic mindsets. Participants were primarily thinking about themselves, their needs, and about the best and most convenient way to travel for them. They did not factor the environment into their decisions and were explicit about this.

“People don’t really care or think when going to school or work, it’s just about the easiest way of getting there.” (Yorkshire and the Humber, urban)

This illustrated the fact that the environmental ‘frame’ was in direct tension with the individual perspective: people rarely ‘connected the dots’ between environmental outcomes and individual behaviour – and often held conflicting and contradictory views and aspirations in relation to the environment.

The pace of change

There were divergent views on how future changes to transport should be implemented, and how rapidly changes should be introduced. As part of this discussion on pace and style of change, participants were introduced to the concept of flexi-mobility as follows:

“We want to think about how we can take smaller, incremental steps in the right direction – rather than trying to change all journeys, we’re interested in how we get people to swap a few more journeys per week to sustainable ones. Some ideas for how we might do this include:

• Parking permits which include refunds for the days it is not used

• Having ‘car-pooling’ Wednesdays – where everyone is encouraged to share a lift into work

• Everyone gets one day a week free public transport

• Turning a lane (usually for cars) into a cycling lane in spring and summer

• “Car Free Sundays” where large parts of the city are not accessible by car 10am-4pm – with extra public transport services that day

• Taking lessons from the 2012 London Olympics, working with businesses and organisations to encourage people to travel less.”

Overall, participants felt that changes to transport systems and policies would need to be made gradually, over multiple years. Gradual change was felt to be more realistic and would enable the necessary and relevant infrastructure to be updated and developed.

BritainThinks 61

Participants who were heavily reliant on their cars were more likely to express apprehension about rapid change. Some felt that they would need more time to plan and prepare for changes to their lifestyles and build trust in new routines and modes of transport. Some participants preferred gradual change so they could delay making changes to their behaviour for as long as possible, recognising the changes as broadly undesirable from a personal perspective. Others felt it was important for change to be slow and gradual, to avoid the risk of alienating those who do not want to change their current behaviours.

“Don’t make brash decisions with big, dramatic bans – this will alienate people. It is better to make slower and smaller changes to build trust – I think they should be careful not to alienate people, to make them do something they really don’t want to do…” (Yorkshire and the Humber, urban)

According to participants, there are various ways they could be encouraged to make more sustainable travel choices:

• Loyalty scheme: Many felt they would be encouraged by a loyalty/reward scheme e.g. Nectar. Specific ideas for rewards ranged from free or discounted future travel or vouchers for different activities in the local community. However, it was important that the rewards were directly relevant and appealing to users, and so there was a preference for the reward type to be flexible.

“I would design an app that would give you rewards such as cinema, theme park or restaurant vouchers for using electric vehicles, public transport, e-bikes or scooters and even pay you a small fee to encourage you to use environmentally friendly means of transport, which could be paid for by increasing tax on fuel, road tax, congestion charges or traffic camera fines.” (Wales, suburban)

• Free public transport: Given the cost barrier, those from lower socio-economic backgrounds and those with young families felt that being able to travel on public transport for free one day a week would encourage them to try it. For these participants, it was important the day of travel could be flexible and of their choosing so that it would be more likely to fit with their routines. Participants were also concerned that free travel on a specific day would lead to public transport being over-crowded and too busy, which could discourage people from using it again.

“I think the idea of getting one day a week on public transport free is a good idea. But not on a specific day. Each person should get an online voucher/pass to use on a day of their choosing. If this was for one specific day, it would be chaos on public transport unless they had more trains/buses/metros. This would encourage small change. (North East, rural)

• Leisure travel initiatives: Overall, participants were more likely to try new modes of transport for leisure travel first, before routine or work-related travel. This was because leisure travel behaviours tended to be less habitual and less entrenched and so participants were more open to considering different options. Participants also described facing less time-pressure at the weekends and would feel more able to make considered decisions. They also felt there would be less at stake, for example if there were any unexpected issues or delays related to trying new things. As a result, these participants thought that leisure travel initiatives (e.g. reduced public transport tickets at weekends/evenings) would be most effective at encouraging new travel behaviours.

BritainThinks 62

• Multiple schemes: Given the scope of change required and the diversity of people’s needs, some felt that multiple initiatives are needed to encourage greener choices.

“I think a great idea is to design multiple schemes that all come together into one design as I don’t think just one new idea will be effective in making a big change in the way people travel to work.” (Yorkshire and the Humber, urban)

However, those who were more engaged with climate change issues and strongly agreed with the need to switch to more sustainable travel behaviours, wanted change to be faster, and more radical. These participants felt that a gradual process would be less effective, as the majority of people would be likely to put off change as long as possible. These participants were potentially reacting to the views of some drivers they had encountered during research, who admitted they would not change their behaviour unless they absolutely had to.

“If things are introduced quickly, people will have to adapt, whereas if it’s gradual it will be harder to get people to do it.” (Wales, urban)

Some of those who preferred quicker change also worried that longer-term plans were at risk of being derailed by future governments. Instead, they felt that shorter-term plans would make the government more accountable and likely to effect change. Some cost-sensitive drivers were also more wary of gradual changes and having to cover the costs of their cars and newer, alternative modes of transport at the same time.

“Partly because I’m kind of an all or nothing person, baby steps wouldn’t work for me, why have all car costs if I’m using other transport – if I were to use hubs etc I would have to cut out the car costs.” (East England, suburban)

There was also an increased sense of urgency around the need to travel more sustainably among younger people. Younger people generally had a high awareness of the fact that failure to adapt to more sustainable travel behaviours quickly would significantly impact their own futures. Moreover, having not yet developed deep-rooted travel habits of their own, younger people were more open and supportive of the need for travel behaviours to change.

“To all the adults out there, please stop using your car for every journey, it has a big impact on the environment and causes a lot of pollution and also has a big impact on children’s’ futures, because if they want to live a happy life then they need to know the air isn’t polluted.” (Young person, 12-13yo, Hertfordshire)

“Future generations will never be able to understand why we did not make small sacrifices today, such as taking different means of transport to prevent the environmental problems we will somehow have to deal with.” (Young person, 17-18yo, Cambridge)

Therefore, while gradual change was more attractive to many, it was not necessarily seen as the most effective route to achieving positive and significant change, given participants’ reluctance to give up driving and to make changes at an individual level.

Ultimately, participants’ views on the pace of change were dependent on whether:

• They preferred and prioritised overall efficacy of the changes, and therefore favoured quicker, more radical change; or

BritainThinks 63

• They were more unwilling or wanted to delay having to make personal sacrifices to achieve environmental improvements. These participants favoured more gradual change and wanted to put off changes for as long as possible.

7.3. Principles to guide future transport decision-making

Ultimately, participants wanted transport decision-makers to make it easier for them to make more sustainable decisions. Generally, people understood the need for greener transport alternatives, and it was important for them to be able to make more sustainable transport decisions in the future.

Consequently, participants identified the following key principles that they felt should guide future transport decisions:

• Ensure that people are able to use greener transport: Participants wanted decision-makers to ensure that transport alternatives are affordable for all and are fair for those on a lower income. For participants, this was also about making sure that all forms of transport are accessible to all.

“You need to be inclusive of everybody - rich, poor, disabled, non-disabled.” (East England, rural)

• Make it desirable to use greener transport: It was also important for participants that transport decision-making ensured that public and/or shared transport is reliable, clean and comfortable to use. As part of this, participants also wanted decision-makers to ensure that all forms of transport would also be simple and easy to use.

“If you’re going to put people onto public transport and other alternatives – they need to make it more people friendly. Our buses are run by Translink and they’re woeful. It needs to be comfortable.” (Northern Ireland, urban)

• Ensure any changes are positive and long-lasting: Participants wanted decision-makers to ensure that any changes were long-term, future-proof and consistent with other government policies. Participants also wanted communities to be consulted about any proposed changes to their local areas to ensure they took into account the local context and the needs of residents.

“Provided they listen to what people say and not thrust on people what they want and what they think they want, maybe then there's hope.” (Brighton, suburban)

“They need to ask local communities and make decisions there about what works for them. They need to consult widely.” (Yorkshire and the Humber, urban)

BritainThinks 64

8. Young people (aged 11-18)

8.1. Current travel behaviour

For young people involved in the qualitative research, the most common way to travel to or from school pre-Covid was the bus, followed by walking or being driven by a parent (Figure 14).

Figure 14: Modes of transport used for getting to and from school

Travelling to school Travelling home from

school

Bus 14 15

Walk 11 9

Car – driven by parent or guardian 9 9

Car – driven by someone else 5 5

Cycle 4 3

Train 3 3

Tram 1 1

Car – driven by me 0 0

Other 2 2

Question from online community (n=27, multi-code question)

Key factors influencing young people’s travel decisions included:

Availability of multiple options: Young people were asked to rate the extent to which they felt they had the freedom to decide how to travel to and from school on a scale of 1-5, where 1 meant that they don’t make the choice and 5 meant that they had ‘total freedom’. Agency of travel choice was split across the sample, and was primarily determined by distance from school and rurality:

• 11 participants indicated that they had limited choice (scores of 1-2 out of 5); more than half lived in rural areas, where they had to travel long distances to school and had limited alternatives available to them;

• 10 participants felt that they had more freedom to choose (scores of 4-5 out of 5); half being from suburban areas who felt they had multiple options, with a key option being walking.

BritainThinks 65

“Due to distance of my new school, I have no choice but to travel by bus or taxi as my mum can't drive. In primary school, I decided if I was going to walk, take my bike or scooter.” (11-12yo, West Midlands)

“As we live 5 minutes away from school, I am able to decide if I want to go by car, bike or walk.” (13-14yo, East England)

Those who had ever tried travelling in a different way tended to do so when a parent was able to offer them a lift by car (if that wasn’t their usual mode of travel). A small number of participants had been prompted to try an alternative mode because they wanted to travel with friends, and one participant indicated that they wanted to travel in a healthier way and so had tried walking.

Social aspect of travel: Those who had the option to walk or cycle to or from school enjoyed it because they could share in this activity with their friends. For those who lived too far away from school to walk or cycle, some had chosen to take a particular mode of public transport because that was how their friends were travelling.

“I’m excited to walk with my friends. I don’t live far from my school and a lot of my friends knock on my door before school and we all walk together.” (13-14yo, East Midlands)

“I enjoy riding in the bus, as I ride with mates.” (17-18yo, South West)

“I just decided to take the train home with my friends because some of them travel home on the train and I just decided to take it home as well.” (13-14yo, London)

The environment: This was more top of mind among young people than adults and was often framed in terms of pollution and global warming. Young people felt that this was a higher priority for them than it was for older people and were more likely to say that everyone has a responsibility to tackle climate change, including individuals taking action. Young people were surprised to find out just how much transport contributed to carbon emissions especially when compared to industry, and this made them feel that it was important for individuals to take responsibility for addressing the role of transport in climate change. This was in contrast to the view of most adults in the main research strand, who did not recognise much individual responsibility for the environmental impact of transport.

However, as discussions progressed it emerged that engagement with the environment was relatively shallow. Specifically, knowledge about the actions and changes needed to reduce climate change was very low and young people did not expect that their own behaviour would be different to that of their parents’ generation (in terms of driving or flying, for example). Slightly older participants (aged 15-18) also expressed some scepticism about what they saw as a wider perception or stereotype that young people care about the environment, and believed this was more likely to be young adults than people their age.

“Global warming [is an important issue to me] because it’s our future. We need to keep our future bright.” (11-12yo, focus group)

“Wow, I would’ve thought factories would be so much bigger and I didn’t know that transport would make that much pollution.” (13-14yo, focus group)

BritainThinks 66

“Young people in their 20s care [about the environment], but people in year 8-9 - I don’t think they care, just from my experience.” (17-18yo, focus group)

Cost was not a significant factor, as this was predominantly the responsibility of their parent or guardian. This did mean that there was limited conceptualisation of relative costs of different alternatives, but also interesting parallels with the findings from the adult strand of research, which showed that many drivers mainly think about the ‘on the day’ costs of transport, rather than the overall costs of buying and maintaining a car.

“[I want to drive] so I don’t have to pay for transport.” (11-12yo, focus group)

“It’s cheaper to use [a car] everyday instead of getting the bus every day.” (13-14yo, focus group)

Impact of Covid-19 on travel behaviour

There were no significant changes in how young people were travelling to or from school upon returning after the school closures as a result of Covid-19. While some young people (and their parents) had reservations about taking public transport, this was mostly among those who were already using public transport alternatives such as walking or cycling pre-Covid – either daily or occasionally; this meant that there was no overarching shift towards any new modes.

“I am a bit worried about wearing a mask on the bus and how many people will be getting on the bus.” (11-12yo, East England)

“I am fairly apprehensive about taking the train to school. I will have to interact with people coming from lots of different places, who have potentially been in contact with other people who may/may not be carrying the virus. I will wear a mask and take hand sanitiser along with me, though I wonder if this will be enough protection.” (17-18yo, London)

8.2. Transport mode deep-dives

Driving

Despite it not being the most common way to travel, being driven was the most preferred way to travel to school, because it was direct, allowed more control over leaving and arrival times, and was the fastest option, which meant they could get up later.

“Sometimes I think it would be nice to travel by car for the comfort and you can go at your own time.” (17-18yo, Northern Ireland)

“I would go in the car because I have more time to get ready in the morning and sleep for longer.” (11-12yo, Wales)

While there was more spontaneous interest in the environment, most young people still expected to learn to drive at some point in the future. However, there were practical barriers to learning how to drive that had become apparent to those closer to learning age, including:

• Cost, including for lessons and running costs, in addition to purchase of a vehicle;

BritainThinks 67

• Time constraints, as they are focussing on their study;

• Lack of need, as many are anticipating going to university and not needing to be able to drive;

• Familiarity with alternatives such as public transport and active transport.

Knowledge of electric vehicles (EVs) was low, but there was a lot of positivity about the environmental benefits, and they were considered to be superior to petrol or diesel vehicles in this regard. However, there was also a lot of uncertainty about how they work, and on the whole, EVs were perceived to be only for people who were well-off. Young people often said they thought EVs would not be an option for them until they dropped in price and had a better range.

“EVs are a good thing because they cause less pollution, but a bad thing is that you can’t travel really far and they have to keep being charged.” (11-12yo, focus group)

“Maybe people with more money will use electric cars because they are more pricey than normal cars.” (13-14yo, focus group)

All participants on the online community wanted to see fewer petrol or diesel cars in the future.

Public transport

Young people were often using public transport already and were positive about travelling with friends – there was particular enjoyment of using trains and trams. Participants responded positively to information about the relative carbon emissions of public transport compared to driving and felt more enthusiastic about using it in the future as a result.

Active travel

Many young people were travelling to and from school by walking or cycling. While travelling with friends was a big motivator for this, it was also evident that the behaviour within their local communities also influenced their likelihood to consider travelling in these ways.

“I don’t ride bikes...no one where I live really rides bikes.” (15-16yo, Northern Ireland)

Some young people, particularly those who were older, felt that cycling could be unsafe as they were required to cycle on the road rather than on footpaths. There was also a lack of confidence in cycle maintenance amongst older groups.

“I used to have a bike, and we’d go around for exercise and a bit of fun really. Sometimes we think instead of taking a bus, we can get together and take a bike. Eventually, because I had to move out to go to school, I gave it to a friend. I wouldn’t say there’s a downside, if there is anything it’s (managing) tyres but there are mostly upsides.” (17-18yo, focus group)

E-bikes were broadly unappealing; for those in older age groups, this was predominantly due to cost and risk of theft, whereas for younger participants there was a real fear of how fast they travelled, and a sense that riders would not be in control. There were similar concerns expressed about e-scooters.

BritainThinks 68

“[An e-bike would be] very dangerous as you go very fast and you may not have a lot of control.” (13-14yo, focus group)

“I like the idea of less effort when having to ride on hills and things but overall I don’t think I’d do it […] when I was on an electric scooter, I hated it because of the speed and lack of control.” (11-12yo, focus group)

“I haven’t ever ridden one but from what I’ve seen, I personally find them extremely dangerous. I’ve seen lots of videos and even news reports of a lot of deaths of people on these scooters, either because they weren’t looking properly, or they crashed.” (15-16yo, focus group)

Aviation

Despite environmental concerns, young people did envisage flying abroad in the future, either to travel or to live, and most wanted to see the same amount of flying occurring in the future.

“I want to be able to have lots of holidays. I want to be able to go to America and other places like Australia.” (11-12yo, North West)

Most could understand why the cost of flights might increase in the future to offset environmental concerns, and while some thought that this was a good way of driving change, others felt it would be unfair to restrict access to travel in this way.

“The increased price will allow airlines to put this extra profit back into their R&D department, who can then think of even more environmentally friendly ways to fly. Eventually this may actually result in reduced prices. For now, drastic measures must be taken in order to reform the earth.” (17-18yo, London)

“As always when money is concerned, it is the less well-off that will be penalised as they are the only ones affected.” (17-18yo, North East)

“It is good that they [airlines] are acknowledging the effect that planes are having on the environment but increasing the cost of flights may hurt people who don't have loads of money. They may need to visit an elderly family member and may not have enough money to pay for the flight, so this will create problems.” (13-14yo, London)

8.3. Transport futures

Three future scenarios were explored with young people (as in the adult strand, though tailored and adapted to be more relevant and accessible to young people).

When thinking about the future, young people became very excited about new technologies and the possibilities these will bring, including to travel. In addition, some participants became more excited and open to using greener alternatives, and while few felt they would personally want to reduce the number of flights they took, many were hopeful about the opportunities to use more public transport and drive EVs. EVs were seen to provide the ‘best of both worlds’ as they were seen to reduce the level of harm to the environment and the level of air pollution, without requiring people to stop driving.

BritainThinks 69

Slightly older participants (aged 15-18) tended to be slightly less optimistic about the environmental opportunities of the future, believing that it would be difficult to change society and to encourage people to make decisions for the benefit of the environment.

“I don’t think much of it will come true…I think there’s a lot of people who will go for cheaper options rather than those that are more suitable for the planet. Also at some point we will hit that point where there’s no saving the planet as a lot of people don’t care.” (15-16yo, focus group)

Key aspects that they wanted to see in the future included:

• Less pollution from petrol and diesel cars;

• Less time spent travelling/stuck in congestion – as this gave more time to spend with family and would be a positive outcome for mental health;

• More opportunities for sustainable travel.

“It is very eco-friendly as they have many transports beginning with 'e' which means they are electric and using renewable energy. Also the transport will be cheaper than nowadays (hopefully).” (13-14yo, East England)

Key aspects that they did not want to see in the future include:

• Reliance on cars: as this caused pollution, congestion, and would cause people to spend a lot of time socially isolated from others while in their cars – all of which would have negative impacts on mental health;

• Lack of choice: the idea of having limited options for public transport or active travel was very unappealing;

• Too much working or studying from home: young people did not want to see a sharp reduction in travel and high levels of remote working;

• Lack of social interaction: human interaction was felt to be really important for mental health, and young people are reluctant to be as reliant on their phones in the future as they have been during lockdown.

“Although it sounds nice not having to travel far for work, it seems a bit claustrophobic to me.” (17-18yo, Northern Ireland)

“I feel like living in that manner would make someone lazy and would take fun and experience out of travelling and going out. The whole point of certain things being so far away is so that you can go there and experience it all for yourself and take in the surroundings. Doing it all at home defeats the point.” (17-18yo, Yorkshire and the Humber)

Conclusions

Young people wanted adults to take more personal responsibility around reducing the carbon impact of transport in the future, and were very open to sustainable modes of travel because they:

BritainThinks 70

• Are somewhat engaged with environmental issues and the impact of climate change in the future;

• Do not have engrained habits around driving, as this was not yet an option for them;

• Are familiar with public transport and active travel because they use them frequently;

• Anticipate that future technology such as EVs will become widespread in their lifetime.

However, as with adults, while 11-18 year-olds are open to sustainable travel options for routine and leisure journeys, there is not a clear sense of the individual changes that will be required to realise an overall shift to more sustainable transport, and very limited indication that young people are planning or expecting to make changes compared to their parents’ generation. For example, young people generally expect to learn to drive, have a strong desire to sustain access to international travel in the future, and are reluctant to stop making frequent trips abroad or taking gap years.

BritainThinks 71

9. Northern Ireland

The research included a boosted sample of participants from Northern Ireland (NI) in

both the qualitative and quantitative research, to ensure that their experiences were

fully considered. The overall research findings therefore take into account the data from NI, and the report findings are all applicable to NI unless otherwise indicated.

This section of the report highlights differences between NI and the rest of the United

Kingdom (UK) derived from the deliberative research and the quantitative survey.

Specifically, it looks at travel behaviours, barriers to behavioural change and potential

interventions. Please note that the figures in this section are all drawn from the specific

questions asked as part of this research project, rather than from the official NI Travel

Survey.

9.1. Current travel behaviour

Driving

Driving was very heavily relied on as the primary mode of transport in NI. The quantitative survey (conducted as part of this project and separate to the Travel Survey for Northern Ireland) revealed that NI had the highest percentage of drivers in the UK, with 81% of respondents saying they drove pre-Covid-19, while 44% drove every day. NI residents were more likely to drive every day than respondents living in any other UK region or devolved nation, with this difference being statistically significant over all other nations and regions, except for the North East and South East (Figure 15).

BritainThinks 72

Figure 15: Percentage of respondents who drove every day pre-Covid-19

Q5. Thinking about your travel behaviours in 2019, before Coronavirus, how frequently or infrequently would you say you used each of the following modes of transport? Base: All respondents (n = 2222,305). Scotland (n=160); North East (n=87), North West (n=231), Yorkshire & Humberside (n=174), West Midlands (n=187); East Midlands (n=150); Wales (n=112); Eastern (n=213); London (n=281); South East (n=268); South West (n=165); Northern Ireland (n=277) * caution small, low base size

The qualitative research showed that in NI, driving was seen as the only practical option. The rurality of NI meant that there were often long distances between participants’ places of residence, work, shopping and other places they needed to travel to, deterring active travel. In addition to the distance, the weather was often cited as making active travel unappealing.. Public transport was usually not seen as a viable alternative to driving, being perceived as infrequent with limited routes and unreliable timings for most journeys. Even among urban participants, public transport was often still perceived as lacking routes, or taking longer than driving.

“Public transport not suitable (for my commuting) as would require several changes of buses and trains. Public transport in Northern Ireland as a whole is useless unless you are travelling into or out of Belfast.” (Northern Ireland, urban)

Public transport

For most journeys, public transport was not seen as a practical option. This was throughout NI, but especially in rural areas. Quantitatively, use of public transport was particularly low in NI, with some of the lowest bus and train use in the UK.

Bus

Bus use in NI was among the lowest in the UK, with only 11% of respondents saying they used the bus at least once a week (compared to a national average of 23%) (Figure 16).

24%25%25%

28%28%29%29%29%30%31%31%

44%

EasternScotlandLondon

North WestSouth West

Yorkshire & HWest Midlands

WalesEast Midlands

North East*South East

Northern Ireland

% who drove every day pre-Covid-19

BritainThinks 73

Qualitatively, this was for similar reasons as in rural regions across the UK, with poor service coverage and unreliability cited as major barriers to using buses.

For many participants, public transport almost exclusively meant buses because they did not have access to the rail network in their local area.

Figure 16: Percentage of respondents who reported frequently using buses pre-Covid-19.

Q5. Thinking about your travel behaviours in 2019, before Coronavirus, how frequently or infrequently would you say you used each of the following modes of transport? Base: All respondents (n = 2305). Scotland (n=160); North East (n=87), North West (n=231), Yorkshire & Humberside (n=174), West Midlands (n=187); East Midlands (n=150); Wales (n=112); Eastern (n=213); London (n=281); South East (n=268); South West (n=165); Northern Ireland (n=277)

Train NI had the highest proportion of any region of those who “never” used trains for transport pre-Covid-19 (37%, compared to 22% nationally) (Figure 17). Qualitatively, this was because of lack of train routes and infrastructure. Even for journeys where train routes exist, the train was often perceived as relatively expensive compared to driving (for example, participants spoke about it being cheaper to drive to Dublin than taking the train).

9%11%13%14%15%15%17%

20%21%22%

29%59%

South WestNorthern Ireland

EasternWales

East MidlandsSouth East

West MidlandsYorkshire & H

North WestNorth East

ScotlandLondon

% who used buses at least once a week pre-Covid-19

BritainThinks 74

Figure 17: Percentage of respondents that ‘never’ used trains pre-Covid-19.


Active travel

NI had very low rates of cycling compared with other regions and nations of the UK. Only 7% of respondents (national average; 12%) reported cycling at least once a week, the lowest rate of any region. 66% of respondents (national average; 59%) reported ‘never’ using cycles the second highest rate of any region (Figure 18).

9%19%20%20%21%21%21%

24%26%28%

35%37%

LondonScotland

North WestYorkshire & H

North EastEastern

South EastSouth West

West MidlandsWales

East MidlandsNorthern Ireland

% who say they "never" used the train pre-Covid-19

BritainThinks 75

Figure 18: Percentage of respondents that “never” cycled pre-Covid-19.


Qualitatively, it was clear that among NI participants more active travel (and more cycling in particular) was seen as unappealing. While some participants were open to considering cycling or walking for leisure, almost no one would consider it for commuting or routine journeys (this is discussed further in section 9.2.).

Overall, there was a clear preference for driving when travelling across the island of Ireland, and for flying when travelling to England, Scotland and Wales.

As in the overall research findings, these travel decisions were motivated by convenience and cost. Driving within the island of Ireland was considered more convenient than using buses or cycling, and more cost-effective then travelling by train.

Similarly, the strong preference for flying when travelling to England, Scotland, Wales or mainland Europe was because it was the fastest and most convenient form of transport. Participants contrasted the 50-minute flight from Belfast to Liverpool with the 9-hour ferry ride for the same journey. This preference for short-haul flights was reflected in the survey, as Northern Ireland had by far the highest use of domestic flights of any region or devolved nation. 49% of NI residents had used a domestic flight, compared to 17% overall (and this was significantly higher than the second-highest area, London, at 28%).

54%54%54%

58%59%59%60%62%62%62%

66%70%

East MidlandsEasternLondon

North WestYorkshire & H

South WestNorth East

West MidlandsWales

South EastNorthern Ireland

Scotland

% who say they "never" cycled pre-Covid-19

BritainThinks 76

9.2. Barriers to behaviour change

The barriers to behaviour change with regards to transport were largely in line with the overall findings, with participants prioritising convenience, flexibility and cost. Additional details specific to or particularly strong among the NI sample is outlined below.

Negative perceptions of cycling: qualitatively, almost all NI participants were unenthusiastic about cycling, with a minority expressing negative attitudes. Participants were likely to be dismissive of cycling – there was a widespread view that it was not a serious option in NI.

• This was reflected quantitatively, with NI having the highest rate of any area of respondents who reported no interest in cycling (28%, compared to an average of 22%);

• In line with overall findings, those who expressed negative attitudes towards cycling were often those who considered it from the perspective of drivers, feeling that NI roads (in both urban and rural areas) were too narrow to accommodate cyclists, and felt that cycle lanes were not used enough to justify the disruption to traffic;

• A common perception among adults in NI was that cycling was for children and young people, but that it was not something they would consider taking up now. For example, one participant said she used to cycle to work as a teenager and in her twenties, however she would “feel silly” doing it now she was older (in her 30s);

• As detailed below, the weather, geography and concerns over road safety all contributed to the sense that cycling was not a viable option in NI;

• Participants in Northern Ireland were also largely negative about cycle lanes;

• Many rural participants felt there would be no demand for them, that rural roads were too narrow to accommodate more lanes, and it was pointless as road congestion from cars or vans was not a barrier to cycling;

• While a few urban participants were positive about cycle lanes (as would-be cyclists concerned about road safety, who saw cycle lanes as something that would give them more confidence) most felt that there was insufficient demand to justify the disruption to traffic, and that congestion was a serious barrier to installing more lanes;

• Some participants mentioned how newly installed cycle lanes in their local area were never used. Participants debated the benefits of the cycle lanes recently introduced in Belfast. Some outside Belfast reported they had heard it worked well, while those who mentioned personal experience were much more critical, feeling it had simply added to congestion without affecting the number of people choosing cycling over the car.

“[Cycle lanes] would be a good idea if the roads [were busier here]. I look right now and it’s about 6 cars a day.” (Northern Ireland, rural)

Road safety: concerns over road safety were a significant barrier to active travel (and particularly cycling) across the national sample and were particularly significant in NI.

• 47% of respondents reported being deterred from cycling more often due to road safety concerns (the second highest rate of any region and compared to a UK average of 41%);

BritainThinks 77

• Qualitatively, participants highlighted concerns over the narrowness of roads in NI, and the lack of street lighting in rural areas as barriers to more active travel

“Better lighting would be great; we don’t have any streetlights at all... I think it would encourage a lot of people to walk more at night” (Northern Ireland, rural)

Geography: The hilly landscape of NI was sometimes cited as a barrier to changing modes of transport, as well as the long distances between people’s homes, work, shopping, schools and other places they may need to travel to as part of routine journeys. This was a barrier to using active travel (due to the fitness and time required), and a barrier to using public transport if it was perceived to still require significant walking and time.

“In theory it sounds like it would be really nice to have more options to walk, and people would definitely do it in their leisure time, but… I am not going to walk because it’s going to take an hour there and an hour back.” (Northern Ireland, rural)

“I don’t know about the other people, but Belfast is a bit of a hilly city… it wouldn’t suit a bike.” (Northern Ireland, urban)

Weather: The weather conditions of NI were frequently cited as a practical barrier to switching away from car use, with participants feeling weather was particularly difficult in NI. One described it as “impossible for nine months of the year”.

• Most participants felt that the weather was a deterrent towards the use of more active travel, and some felt it would also deter them from using public transport

“I would use the bus if it was cheap enough to go into town and save on parking. If it’s raining I still wouldn’t, the money aspect would help but there’s still other factors like weather.” (Northern Ireland, urban)

Congestion: While congestion was a concern across the overall sample, participants in NI felt it was particularly difficult in urban areas of NI. This increased resistance to measures that were perceived as increasing congestion, such as introducing more cycle lanes.

• “I think before Covid we were ahead of London for traffic congestion…the buses are still stuck in traffic as well.” (Northern Ireland, rural)

“I don’t know if it [cycle lanes] would realistically work in Belfast, the traffic is ridiculous anyway.” (Northern Ireland, urban)

9.3. Impact of Covid-19 on travel behaviour

In line with the overall research findings, most people within NI expected to return to their usual patterns of transport in 12 months’ time, with an increase in driving and a decrease in public transport. However, NI survey respondents were particularly likely to expect to be using their car as normal, and to be flying less in a year’s time.

NI respondents were among the highest to expect no change in their car use in 12 months’ time, with 50% saying they would drive “about the same” (compared to a national average of 43%). This perhaps reflects the lack of alternatives to the car.

BritainThinks 78

NI respondents were the most likely of any region or devolved nation to expect a change in cost and likelihood of taking short-haul flights in 12 months’ time:

• They were more likely than those in any other nation or region to think they would take fewer short-haul flights in 12 months’ time (29% compared to a national average of 22%);

• In line with the overall findings, this seems to be motivated by the expectation that, due to Covid-19, flight routes will be less well serviced and more expensive, as well as being a risky place to catch Covid-19. Some participants therefore expected be cutting back on flying to Great Britain for leisure for to visit relatives;

“[In 12 months] I’d visit relatives via car or airplane. [Which one] all depends on the Covid situation, if it’s still the same as now I will be staying local.” (Northern Ireland, urban)

• They also had the highest expectation of any region or devolved nation that domestic flight prices will increase in 12 months’ time (70% compared to a national average of 62%).

As observed in the overall research findings, participants generally struggled to imagine substantial changes to their transport behaviours in the future, and especially to imagine relying less on cars. Specific observations for why this may be the case in NI include:

• In common with other rural regions and devolved nations in this research, participants in NI viewed public transport provision as insufficient to make it a viable alternative to driving;

• Some participants had a sense that Northern Ireland’s population density was too low to maintain good networks of public transport, and therefore cars would remain the key mode of transport;

• The ‘bad’ weather, ‘hilly’ geography and long distances in NI were common and significant perceived barriers to using active travel;

• There were a few mentions of NI’s social context, with one participant feeling its political history would be a barrier to ride-sharing, particularly in Belfast.

“You’d have Catholic taxis and ‘other’ taxis. I don’t think it would work here.” (Northern Ireland, urban)

The research indicated that the proposal to phase out petrol and diesel cars by 2035 may be particularly impactful on purchasing decisions in NI, compared to other regions*.

In response to the proposal to phase out petrol and diesel cars by 2035, respondents from NI were most likely to say that this would make them less likely to buy or lease a petrol or diesel car (31%, compared to a national average of 23%) (Figure 19).

BritainThinks 79

Figure 19: Percentage of respondents less likely to buy/lease a petrol or diesel vehicle as their next vehicle if petrol and diesel cars are banned by 2035

Q19. Thinking about your next car or van purchase or lease, how, if at all, might the government's proposal to end sales of new petrol, diesel and hybrid vehicles by 2035 or earlier influence your decision? Base: All respondents (n = 2305). Scotland (n=160); North East (n=87), North West (n=231), Yorkshire & Humberside (n=174), West Midlands (n=187); East Midlands (n=150); Wales (n=112); Eastern (n=213); London (n=281); South East (n=268); South West (n=165); Northern Ireland (n=277)

• NI survey respondents were slightly more likely than other UK regions or nations to be

familiar with electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure;

• NI had high reported visibility of EV charge points, with 69% of respondents having seen a charging point in the last month (the second highest rate behind London at 71%, and above the national average of 60%);

• Only 8% did not know the location of their nearest EV charging point. This was the lowest of any region, and significantly lower than the overall average of 17%.


5%

18%

19%

19%

19%

21%

24%

25%

26%

28%

29%

31%

North East

West Midlands

Scotland

Wales

Eastern

East Midlands

North West

South West

London

South East

Yorkshire & H

Northern Ireland

% less likely to buy/lease a petrol or diesel vehicle as their next vehicle if petrol and diesel cars are banned by 2035

BritainThinks 80

10. Conclusions

10.1. Summary of findings

This research has highlighted that convenience, comfort and cost, underpinned by habit, were by far the most important factors influencing travel decisions today. Among participants, convenience was defined in several ways, including saving time, general ‘ease’ of the journey and consistency or reliability of a travel mode. While participants were willing to accept a slightly less convenient travel option to receive a cost saving, or a personal benefit (e.g. health and fitness in the case of cycling), currently any modes which were perceived to be too inconvenient were simply disregarded.

Coming from a place where they are prioritising convenience, comfort and cost, participants across the sample described a pervasive use of and attachment to the car. For drivers, travelling by car was often the most convenient option for all journeys as it enables a direct route door-to-door, is comfortable and is often the fastest way to complete a journey. The sense of control that driving offers was also important to drivers, and those who were learning to drive were often motivated by a desire for liberation from being reliant on others and/or public transport. This attachment to the car has only increased since the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic, with participants valuing both the safety (through social isolation) and control (in terms of cleanliness) of travel offered by private vehicle. Further, the evidence suggests that a significant proportion of increased cycling and walking during lockdown was for recreation. There is some evidence to suggest that cycling for recreation can lead to cycling for utility. However, with more people driving it is unclear what the overall impact of the pandemic will be on sustainable travel and it is possible that, overall, Covid-19 may present more of a risk than an opportunity in terms of its impact on sustainable travel behaviour.

This research also highlighted that, except for a small minority, the environment was not a consideration when making transport choices. However, while this research also demonstrated clear knowledge and awareness gaps about the environmental impact of transport, a focus on ‘education’ alone is unlikely to be effective in encouraging the uptake of more sustainable travel behaviour. Participants in this research told us that when they have used more sustainable modes of transport such as public or active travel, it was often because the car was a sub-optimal option due to being less convenient (e.g. difficult to park) or more expensive (e.g. due to parking or congestion fees). Therefore the research revealed that the most effective measures for encouraging sustainable travel would make car use less convenient or more expensive. However, there was also a sense that the ‘punitive’ nature of these measures would be off-putting, and would only be effective if viable, safe and attractive alternatives to the car were also made more accessible (be this an actual or perceived shift in provision).

Importantly, this research also found that once prompted with information showing transport’s contribution to UK carbon emissions, participants agreed that it was important for transport behaviours to be sustainable and wanted to be able to make ‘greener’ travel decisions. Ideally, participants wanted sustainable travel choices to be as easy and natural as recycling is for them now. However, currently many people do not feel able to travel more sustainably for several reasons including:

• Driving being the most convenient and cost-effective mode of travel for them;

BritainThinks 81

• Public transport either not being accessible or cost-effective;

o Both of these factors were particularly true for those who lived in rural areas, who were disabled or who cared for someone;

• Current infrastructure and roads making it too difficult or dangerous to cycle or to walk;

• Both essential and leisure journeys being too long for walking to be a viable option.

As a result, there was widespread desire for government-led support to enable the public to make more sustainable travel choices.

Finally, it is worth noting that younger and older people tended to be most receptive to changing their travel behaviours, with younger people being less habituated to driving and more receptive to environmental messages, while older people were less time-pressured and more open to exploring options seen to be less ‘convenient’. Conversely, working-age adults, parents of young children and those in rural areas who felt they had very limited alternatives to driving were less receptive to exploring non-car travel modes.

10.2. Opportunities to change transport behaviour

To help understand what would encourage people to change their travel behaviours and adopt more sustainable modes of transport, this research has drawn upon the ‘Capability Opportunity Motivation – Behaviour’ model (COM-B model), a key behavioural change theory (Figure 20). According to ‘The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions’ (Susan Michie, Lou Atkins & Robert West, 2014, p. 59-60), the COM-B model dictates that for any behaviour to occur:

1. There must be capability; this can be either ‘physical’ (e.g. physical skills, strength or stamina) or ‘psychological’ (having the cognitive skills, strength or stamina as well as knowledge) to perform the behaviour.

2. There must be opportunity; this can be ‘physical’ (e.g. physically accessible) or ‘social’ (including cultural norms, interpersonal influences, and social cues).

3. There must be sufficient motivation; this can be ‘reflective’ (involving self-conscious planning and beliefs about what is good or bad), or ‘automatic’ (processes involving wants and needs, desire, impulses and reflex responses).

BritainThinks 82

Figure 20: The COM-B Model

Source: ‘The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions’ (Susan Michie, Lou Atkins & Robert West, 2014, p. 62)

This research identified a number of potential interventions that would be most effective at encouraging use of more sustainable alternatives. These ideas for potential interventions were designed as research tools, and do not represent Government policy. The COM-B model provides a framework within which these ideas can be understood and highlights gaps that need to be addressed in terms of people’s capability, opportunity and motivation to partake in them. The remainder of this section considers the potential interventions put forward in this report structured by the COM-B framework.

In order to encourage more sustainable travel, any potential interventions need to ensure that the public are capable of carrying out the behaviour and that any physical or psychological barriers are removed:

• Try before you buy schemes lower the cost barriers to entry and could prompt action by allowing people to test whether alternatives suit them and their lifestyles before making any long-term commitments. By creating opportunities to test new modes out at little or no cost, there is opportunity to overcome misperceptions or to start to see and feel benefits. For example, this could include trial schemes for bikes and e-bikes.

• Linking environmental impact and travel choices more explicitly by providing the relevant knowledge at key stages of the decision-making process, such as through apps that include carbon emissions information for different modes, could encourage people to travel more sustainably. Importantly, this research found that there is very little spontaneous knowledge about the extent of the impact that transport, and cars specifically, have on the environment. Therefore, building awareness of the environmental impact of travel choices could be a good first step towards consideration of sustainable transport options in the future.

Interventions must provide opportunities for the behaviour to occur and ensure there are safe and attractive alternative modes of transport available:

• A gradual transition to more sustainable modes over a number of years was felt by participants to be more realistic, both in terms of enabling the relevant infrastructure to be updated and developed and in terms of their own behaviour, allowing them to plan

BritainThinks 83

and prepare for changes to their lifestyles and routines. However, it is worth noting that some people felt change needs to be quicker and more radical to be effective due to a sense that short-term plans will make the Government more accountable to change, and long-term change might lead to people procrastinating, and putting off change for as long as possible. For example, some drivers actually said they would continue to drive their petrol or diesel cars for as long as legally possible.

• Increasing cycling infrastructure and public transport capacity and connectivity, especially in rural areas. Specific suggestions include:

o More regular services & more routes on buses and trains;

o More real-time information apps to help you plan journeys;

o More night bus services;

o More tables and free Wi-Fi on trains – making it easier to work;

o And introducing Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) where feasible to provide more non-car opportunities for travel.

• Addressing negative perceptions of cycling and cyclists, and broadening the image of who can be a cyclist, by making cycling more accessible and aspirational to a wider group of people would help to break down current social barriers to uptake. Current negative perceptions of cyclists were driven by the perception that cycling infrastructure takes road space away from car users, as well as that cyclists are rude or aggressive towards drivers. This was particularly the case in cities where cycling is more prominent, such as London and Bristol. This can create an ‘us vs. them’ attitude.

• Increasing the visibility of electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure to make them appear more widespread. For example, extensive or priority parking for EVs and visible charging infrastructure would clearly signpost to the public that this technology is ready for them today, rather than having to wait until further into the future.This would also help to address the perception that EVs might be inconvenient, which is often linked to concerns about poor range and there being insufficient charging infrastructure available and is currently a significant barrier to the uptake of EVs.

Interventions must provide sufficient motivation and must persuade and incentivise people:

• Addressing the safety concerns of cycling to make cycling feel safer for a wider group of people, by ensuring that cycle lanes are continuous, well lit and separated from traffic. For those who drive or use public transport, safety issues linked to cyclists needing to share road space with cars and the condition of the roads themselves were often the most significant barriers to cycling.

• Focussing on leisure journeys as a first step, including introducing cost incentives for leisure travel. There was generally a greater willingness to consider more sustainable options for leisure travel because:

o Leisure travel behaviours are far less habitual and less entrenched;

o People are more open to trying alternatives (including slower options) when decisions can be more considered and less time-pressured;

o They may see leisure travel as quality time with family, especially young children;

BritainThinks 84

o People are more likely to want to prioritise their health in a leisure context.

• Highlighting social and community benefits of alternatives such as Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), as this provides a wider scope for motivating behaviour change beyond the environmental argument (which, in itself, does not resonate for most).

o For example, there was more support for LTNs if they were able to create pleasant, green and social spaces, with a community focus where people were encouraged to stop and spend time.

o Establishing social communities of cyclists, where people could meet others and build confidence and skills together would also make people more likely to want to try cycling, e-bikes or adapted cycles.

10.3. Guiding principles for developing effective behaviour change mechanisms

Ultimately, participants wanted Government-led support and transport decision-makers to make it easier for them to make more sustainable travel decisions. Consequently, participants identified a number of guiding principles for any future investment in measures to encourage sustainable travel:

• Public engagement at the local level to ensure that interventions or policies are accessible and meet the needs of local people now and into the future. Participants felt it was important for communities to be consulted about any proposed changes to their local areas to ensure they took into account the local needs in the short-term and long-term. This is especially true for changes that could have a significant impact on infrastructure in local areas, including the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

• Future decision-making that focuses on investing in transport infrastructure to ensure that people both want and are able to use sustainable forms of transport. As part of this, participants also felt it was important transport changes are fair, ensuring the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society are not disproportionately affected. Given that cost and accessibility were identified as two of the main barriers to alternative modes of transport, it was also important for participants that transport decision-making ensured that all forms of transport were affordable, accessible and comfortable for all.

• Future proofing of policy decisions to ensure changes are long-term and consistent with other Government policies. Given some awareness of the Government’s previous ‘u-turn’ on diesel cars there was some concern about the longevity of any future changes to travel and it was important that any future changes were long-term successes.

BritainThinks 85

11. Appendix

11.1. Specialist Group

With many thanks to all members of the Specialist Group, who included:

• Lorraine Whitmarsh; Director of the Centre for Climate Transitions, Cardiff University

• Greg Marsden; Professor of Transport Governance, ITS Leeds

• Prue Stone; Head of Sustainability, Explore Worldwide

• Robin Pointin; Managing Director, Go Travel Solutions

• Xavier Brice; CEO, Sustrans

• Daisy Narayanan; Director of Urbanism, Sustrans

• John Siraut; Director of Economics & Global Technology Lead, Jacobs

• Richard Dilks; CEO, CoMo

• Christopher Martin; Co-Founder and Director, Urban Movement

• Katie Hall; Regional Market Director – Transport Planning, Systra

BritainThinks 86

11.2. Strand 1 – general public sample breakdown Table 1. General public sample breakdown by demographic criteria

Demographic Criteria Quota per standard

GOR region/DA

Quota for NI

(boosted sample)

Age 18-25 Min 2 Min 8



Age 65+ Min 2 Min 8

Gender Men Min 5 Min 17

Gender Women Min 5 Min 17

Gender Other Recorded only Recorded only

Ethnicity BAME Reflective of local

population with min

24 across total

sample

Reflective of local

population with min

24 across total

sample

Location See below table See below table See below table

Family status Children, under 12,

living at home

Min 4 Min 8

Family status Children, over 12 or

not living at home

Record only Record only

Family status No children Record only Record only

Socio-economic

group

AB Min 2 Min 7

Socio-economic

group

C1/C2 Min 4 Min 15

Socio-economic

group

DE Min 2 Min 7

Driver type Heavy (at least once

a day)

Min 2 Min 4

Driver type Medium (at least

once a week)

Min 2 Min 4

BritainThinks 87

Driver type Occasional (less than

once a month)

Min 2 Min 4

Driver type Non-drivers Min 3 Min 6

Cyclists At least once a week Min 2 Min 5

Public transport Train/Tube at least

once a week

Min 2 Min 3

Public transport Bus/tram at least

once a week

Min 2 Min 3

Commute (pre

Covid-19)

By public transport Min 2 Min 4

Commute (pre

Covid-19)

By car Min 2 Min 4

Disability Disability/long-term

health condition that

affects mobility

Min 16 in the total

sample

Min 16 in the total

sample

BritainThinks 88

Table 2. General public sample by location Urbanity/rurality defined by own perceptions, size of nearest city/town and available transport links

Location Criteria Quota per region/nation

All GOR regions in England

except London

Urban Min 3


except London

Suburban Min 3


except London

Rural Min 3

London Urban Min 10

London Suburban Min 2

London Rural N/A

Wales Urban Min 2

Wales Suburban Min 3

Wales Rural Min 3

Scotland Urban Min 2

Scotland Suburban Min 3

Scotland Rural Min 3

Northern Ireland Urban Min 7*

Northern Ireland Suburban Min 7*

Northern Ireland Rural Min 15*

*The Northern Ireland sample was ‘boosted’ to ensure better sample representation from NI. The Department for Transport worked in collaboration with the devolved administrations on this project and Northern Ireland decided to fund a sample increase in their nation.

BritainThinks 89

11.3. Strand 2 - young people sample breakdown Table 3. Young people sample breakdown by demographic criteria

Criteria Overall sample quota

Geography 2 per each of the 12 regions of the UK

Age 6-7 of each age bracket

Gender Min 10 male

Min 10 female

SEG (social grade) Min 4 AB

Min 8 C1C2

Min 4 DE

Ethnicity Min 4 BAME

Location Min 3 Urban

Min 3 Suburban

Min 3 Rural

BritainThinks 90

11.4. Strand 3 – quantitative sample breakdown Table 4. Quantitative sample breakdown by demographic criteria

Factor Unweighted sample Weighted sample

Total 2,305 2,305

Male 1,092 1,125

Female 1,213 1,180

18-34 631 655

35-55 766 777

55+ 908 873

ABC1 1,329 1,277

C2DE 976 1,028

Urban 1,835 1,854

Rural 470 451

Public sector employment 365 374

Private sector employment 913 956

Scotland 160 195

North East 87 94

North West 231 257

Yorkshire & Humberside 174 188

West Midlands 187 199

East Midlands 150 163

Wales 112 112

Eastern 213 215

London 281 302

South East 268 313

South West 165 199

BritainThinks 91

Northern Ireland 277 69

11.5. Future scenarios overview

Below is an overview of three possible future scenarios that were shown to participants on the week 3 online community and during the close event focus groups. These hypothetical future scenarios were designed to be a tool to help participants think about different ways people might live and work in the future and to understand their priorities for the future of transport.

The car is king

It is 2040. In this version of the future, things are pretty similar to today – but an underlying distrust of others and unknown places (as a hangover from the Covid pandemic) has led to a rise in car use. People in this future are quite individualistic.

While a few people make use of flexible and home-working, not all employers trust employees to work remotely. So, most people travel into work or university.

The world is still city-focussed – cities are still desirable and expensive places to live.

Car ownership is very high – people have started buying bigger cars such as SUVs. Most cars these days tend to be electric – there are charge-points accessible in most places.

In contrast, public transport is less popular - and there is less investment in public transport as a result.

There a few key routes connecting key cities, but local public transport has really declined (especially buses). It is also less pleasant to walk or cycle as there is so much traffic, and not many cycle paths.

Let’s meet someone from this future.

Meet Evie. Evie is 44 and lives by herself in the suburbs. She is an accountant and works in an office in the inner city.

Evie drives to the office every day for work – there is quite a lot of traffic and it takes about an hour each way, though due to traffic sometimes it can be longer.

BritainThinks 92

While sitting in traffic, Evie sees an advert for hand soap and remembers the pandemic lockdown many years ago. She remembers that sense of not feeling comfortable being close to other people, even once lockdown was over.

Evie remembers driving more during the pandemic and avoiding taking the bus. That sort of developed into a bit of a habit for her. She rarely gets the bus or train anymore – it’s just not as nice as her car.

Evie notices a bus passing – there are a still people on there, but not many.

In her 20s, Evie used to take the bus to work all the time, as it was cheaper than parking in the city every day, and she could read.

Evie’s car recently had to go to the garage so she decided to get the bus into work – but when she got to the bus stop she noticed the route wasn’t running any more, and she’d had to take a taxi. She’d heard in the news that public transport was shrinking in her city due to under-use but hadn’t noticed it really until that happened.

BritainThinks 93

Since then, Evie has been thinking about cycling to work some days, because it would be a good way to exercise. But there aren’t many cycle lanes – and there are so many cars on the road that she feels intimidated. Also, as so many cars are electric these days, she is worried she won’t be able to hear them coming.

15-minute communities

It is 2040. In this future, since the pandemic, there was a social shift. People felt a stronger sense of community, leading to a greater focus on environment, wellbeing and local communities.

Many places across the UK adopted something called the ‘15-minute community’ mindset – that is, rarely travelling more than 15 minutes for work, shopping, studying or leisure. As a result, local communities really developed and grew.

In comparison, cities and town centres became less important.

In lots of communities there are local office hubs, providing office and study space through employers and universities. This means that people can come together with colleagues and peers, without a long commute.

Hardly anyone owns their own car now, except for electric ones. If people do have cars, they tend to share them, either with friends or in local ‘car clubs’.

People mostly walk, use e-bikes, adapted e-bikes and electric scooters to get around. At train stations there are now things called ‘mobility hubs’ with lots of different ways to get to your next destination: including buses, shared taxis, hire bikes, and hire cars (like Zipcar).


Meet Sam. Sam is 35 and lives with his partner and daughter. He works as a customer service representative for a technology company

Every day Sam walks his daughter to school, which takes 7-minutes. He then takes the bus to work, which takes him 10 minutes.

Sam used to have to get the train in to work every day, which took over an hour. But a few years ago, he started working at a local office ‘hub’ only 10 minutes’ bus or cycle away from his house. Lots of people work there, all from different companies. Sam’s partner works from home, but Sam prefers to have an office space so this works well for him.

BritainThinks 94

Pretty much everything Sam does is within 15 minutes’ reach – including shopping, swimming, or going to the park. And since more people are working, shopping and eating locally – there’s much more going on in the local area. The local area, which was a bit run down a few years ago, has really come back to life.

Sam realises that he hasn’t actually been further away from home for over a month – not since he went to visit his uncle.

Sam’s uncle lives in the countryside – since Sam doesn’t drive he took the train to visit him. His uncle picked him up from the station in his new car – though he doesn’t technically own the car. He’s sharing the car with a few other people that live in the same village. His uncle says that the village is growing as people are moving out of cities to live in greener areas.

It is pretty normal for people not to drive nowadays. Sam can see the road from his desk – looking at the road now, cars are outnumbered by bicycles, e-bikes and e-scooters.

BritainThinks 95

Sam sometimes arranges to meet friends after work. When he does this, he goes to the station across from his office where he can catch a tram or bus. Sometimes, if the bus isn’t leaving within the next 5 minutes, he decides to take an e-scooter instead. It’s quite easy to pick different ways of getting around when everything is in one place!'

Digital life

It is 2040. In this version of the future, life is much more digital – people do much more online, including shopping, working and socialising. Everyone who can work or study from home, does so.

People tend to travel around much less – and less is done face-to-face. Rush hour is a thing of the past – as fewer people travel at peak times.

People shop online for almost everything, and there are lots of delivery services on the roads. People get their daily deliveries of essentials on milk floats and bikes.

Cities are less important as fewer people need to work in the same place, and big retail stores are quite rare.

It is less usual to own a car – people tend to use ‘on-demand’ services and apps if they need to travel. Even public transport has become digital.


Meet Cassie. Cassie is 31 and lives in a flat with her partner. She works at a large local supermarket, packing online orders of groceries for home delivery.

As most people work from home every day if they can, it is only key workers like Cassie who commute to their place of work.

Most people do their shopping online, including for their groceries. When Cassie works at the supermarket, she never actually sees any customers – all of the food is ordered online, packed up by Cassie and her co-workers, and sent out for delivery.

BritainThinks 96

Cassie lives in a converted office building – since so few companies need big offices, lots of buildings like hers were converted into flats.

The city feels different – it’s a lot more residential now.

Rather than rush hour traffic outside, the roads are filled with a steady stream of delivery services rather than people getting from A to B.

Cassie doesn’t own a car – that’s pretty unusual these days. Instead, if she needs to get somewhere she uses an app to check the fastest and cheapest route to get where she’s going.

Usually Cassie gets the bus – not an ‘old-fashioned’ bus that always takes the same route but one of those smaller, modern buses that picks people up and drops passengers closer to their destinations. It might take a tiny bit longer than the old-fashioned version – but it’s nice being dropped so close to home.

Documents

Decarbonising Transport Deliberative Research