Category: Transport

Who governs the skies? Shaping the future of drone logistics

Author Transport and Society | Posted on

Drones promise faster, greener deliveries – but without clear governance, they risk creating new problems. Our policy brief calls for collaborative frameworks to balance innovation with safety, equity, and public trust.

Credit: Photo by Diana Măceşanu on Unsplash

by Daniela Paddeu, Associate Professor of Sustainable Freight Futures

Drones have long promised a logistics revolution. From delivering medical supplies to remote areas, to easing congestion in cities, they capture the imagination as a futuristic solution to last-mile delivery. But as our new policy brief Governing the Skies shows, the future of drone deliveries in the UK will be shaped less by technology alone and more by how we choose to govern their integration into everyday life.

Without careful coordination, drones risk creating as many problems as they solve. That is why we call for a clear, collaborative, and forward-looking governance framework that balances innovation with public benefit.

The promise and the problem

Over the past decade, drones have moved rapidly from niche prototypes to viable delivery tools. They offer the potential to:

  • reach hard-to-access rural or island communities;
  • reduce delivery times in congested cities; and
  • provide low-carbon alternatives to vans for certain goods.

The UK Government has already signalled its ambitions. The Future of Flight Action Plan (2024) sets out a roadmap for regular drone deliveries by 2027, and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is trialling Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations, a key step towards commercial scale-up.

But behind the headlines lie fundamental uncertainties.

How will drones share already crowded airspace?

Who is liable in case of accidents?

How can we protect wildlife, reduce noise pollution, and ensure equity of access?

Without answers, we risk rushing ahead with a technology that outpaces the safeguards needed to deliver genuine public benefit.

What our research found

Through stakeholder engagement and foresight methods, we examined the governance challenges of drone deliveries in the UK. Five areas stand out:

  1. Transport system risks – including cybersecurity, integrity, digital infrastructure, and impacts on general aviation.
  2. Local authority readiness – planning gaps, lack of resources, and the need to align drones with broader environmental goals.
  3. Societal factors – public trust, perceptions of safety, and questions of fairness and accessibility.
  4. Regulation – liability, insurance, privacy, and the lack of integration between national aviation rules and local planning.
  5. Industry readiness – uncertain market demand, fragile business models, and the need for stronger government coordination.

In short: governance has not kept pace with innovation.

Credit: Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

What does this mean for policy?

Our policy brief sets out five key areas for action:

  1. Planning
    • Develop national guidance for drone take-off and landing zones.
    • Integrate drone infrastructure into local development plans.
    • Include environmental assessments, especially near sensitive habitats.
  2. Working with industry
    • Support collaborative pilots and demonstration projects.
    • Build public-private partnerships to help SMEs innovate.
    • Encourage data-sharing to inform future regulation.
  3. Public engagement
    • Invest in awareness campaigns to build trust.
    • Communicate transparently about safety, privacy, and environmental impacts.
    • Co-design local strategies with communities to address concerns like noise or intrusion.
  4. Regulation
    • Clarify liability, insurance, and airspace rules for BVLOS operations.
    • Align with international best practices while keeping flexibility for trials.
    • Embed environmental safeguards in all drone operations.
  5. Central vs. Local Government
    • Define roles and responsibilities between the CAA, national regulators, and local authorities.
    • Provide funding and capacity-building for local government.
    • Foster coordination through cross-government taskforces.

Why this matters now

Drone deliveries are no longer a distant prospect; they are already being trialled across the UK. Decisions made in the next few years will shape whether drones become a trusted, sustainable, and socially beneficial part of our mobility ecosystem or another fragmented technology rollout that deepens inequalities.

Good governance means moving beyond narrow debates about risk or commercial opportunity. It means ensuring drones support broader goals: decarbonisation, equity of access, safety, and public trust.

The skies are opening to new possibilities. But without the right rules, partnerships, and public dialogue, drones risk being grounded before they truly take off. It is time to build a governance framework that ensures drones deliver: not just parcels, but also public value.

Read the policy brief

Our full policy brief, Governing the Skies: Priorities and Policy Pathways for the Future of Drone Deliveries, sets out the detailed findings and recommendations from this research. It was written by Dr Daniela Paddeu and Dr Eda Beyazit at the Centre for Transport and Society (CTS), University of the West of England (UWE Bristol), as part of the Governance and Trust in Emerging Systems (GATES) project, a collaboration between the University of Bath, the University of Birmingham, and UWE Bristol.

Read the full policy brief here: Governing the skies: Priorities and policy pathways for the future of drone deliveries

Further materials: you can also watch the recording of Daniela’s seminar here: Centre for Transport and Society Seminars | Daniela Paddeu “Governing the sky”

If you’d like to learn more about the project and what the policy brief could mean for your work – whether in local government, industry, or community planning – please contact Dr Daniela Paddeu at daniela.paddeu@uwe.ac.uk.

This blog was written by Dr Daniela Paddeu, Associate Professor of Sustainable Freight Futures at the Centre for Transport and Society, University of the West of England, Bristol.

Dr Daniela Paddeu is a leading researcher in sustainable urban freight and transport decarbonisation. Her work focuses on integrating freight into urban mobility planning, stakeholder engagement, and governance challenges in last-mile logistics. She has conducted extensive research on local authorities’ role in freight policy, highlighting governance gaps and the need for co-designed, place-based solutions. Through her projects, including studies on freight decarbonisation in the UK, she advocates for stronger policy alignment between national ambitions and local implementation strategies. You can contact her at: daniela.paddeu@uwe.ac.uk ¦ Linkedin: Daniela Paddeu.

What is the future of car ownership in urban areas? 

Author Transport and Society | Posted on

A panel session at the European Urban Research Association 2025 Conference sought to understand why sustainable mobility initiatives have not resulted in significant reductions in the dominance of cars in urban areas. 

By Graham Parkhurst, Sarah Toy, Ben Clark and Pete Dyson

In the spring of 2025, the four of us came together around an initiative to run a panel session at the European Urban Research Association’s 2025 conference. We share a concern for how the private car fits into a sustainable mobility future, and in particular, its role in urban areas, where the consequences of car use are most obvious and alternatives to the car tend to be more available. 

We identify the ‘turn’ in the transport planning discourse towards sustainable mobility as being, so far, a missed opportunity in practice. New transport options, such as car sharing clubs, escooters, and electric bikes, and enhanced buses and ticketing systems have at most times and places remained marginal, while the private car dominates. The transition to the electric car created a moment in which it was sensible to question what we need and want from cars, particularly in urban areas given the implications of creating an electric vehicle recharging ecosystem in place of current refuelling infrastructures and practices. Instead, the reduced environmental impacts of the electric car have been taken by many as a signal that it is fine just to substitute the current fossil-fuel powered car fleet with new technologies. This is despite the fact that private car ownership uses space very inefficiently: individual cars are parked perhaps 95% of the time, and roads and parking mainly used by cars has been shown to occupy as much as 41% of space in some localities. 

Challenging this version of the transition, our panel session questioned whether ‘things have to be like this’. It reflected on what we know about decisions to increase or reduce car ownership and how to influence behaviour. We examined the conditions under which politicians will lead ambitiously on mobility policy, and whether technology-substitution will actually be accepted in practice by the public. 

Ben Clark reflected on car ownership across the life course. Car ownership is influenced by the built environment, the transport system, economic factors, attitudes and preferences and individual circumstances such as being old enough to acquire a driving licence or being healthy enough to drive. But Ben emphasised that it is best to consider car ownership levels as something that are explained as decisions made by households, rather than individuals. For example, if people leave or join a household, that is likely to trigger changes in car ownership. A couple living apart may need a car each but can agree to share a single car once living together. This example also emphasises that life events, births, deaths, becoming an adult, and changes in relationship status are key factors often associated with changing household composition. As a result, some individuals’ car ownership status will change several times across the lifecourse, dependent on a flux of influences. 

As car ownership does show variability over time and space, targeted initiatives to influence ownership decisions might be particularly effective. Pete Dyson considered the role of social influence on individual choices. Alongside other household members, peers and opinion leaders are important in shifting ‘norms’. Simply the observation of others adopting different behaviours or accepting new technologies can be influential for reassurance, normalisation and social status. The policy of ‘green number plates’ are an example of a social influence measure supporting the transition to electric vehicles, by creating a distinctive colour coding aspect to the number plate on display. He shared results from a large-scale survey of over 2000 UK drivers he conducted in 2024, finding that the distinctive plates provide a way to observe the spread of the electric vehicle within the fleet and provide a reward mechanism to owners who wish to be identified for their innovative and less environmentally damaging choices. A further international study among countries with, and without, the policy is being conducted in 2025. One implication beyond EVs is that social marketing techniques can also be more ambitious in promoting public transport ridership as enabling a lower level of household car ownership. And rather than relying solely on psychological rewards, the approach could be combined with traditional economic benefits, for example in the form of mobility credits for behaviours in the direction desired by policy. 

Zero Emission Vehicle Registration Plate with Green Flash used in the United Kingdom
Credit: Department for Transport/Office for Low Emissions Vehicles Open Government Licence v3.0

Urban local authorities would need to be central to promoting lower car ownership levels. Sarah Toy, though, concluded from analysing carbon mitigation data from 791 cities around the world and interviewing 19 city transport officers in ten countries that few cities are actively promoting lower car ownership. In fact, even the best performers (Oslo and London) had ‘no car growth’ strategies, which is a lesser objective than reducing car ownership. Without changing the level of provision for the car, reductions in car ownership are unlikely to occur, but even cities with high levels of active travel and public transport (such as Zurich) faced public opposition to those kinds of proposal. Within the UK, Nottingham is noted for success in introducing a local tax on employee parking for facilities like offices, but this was the outcome of extensive and intensive negotiations combined with clear benefits including development of the tram system. Political leadership would be a key factor in more cities adopting car ownership reduction strategies, and in turn this requires stable government and a clear vision. Until now, those taking leadership have tended to be left-of-centre administrations. 

Trams in Nottingham City Centre
Trams in Nottingham City Centre, Credit: https://pixabay.com/users/reagan_yip-19131272/

For politicians who do decide to rely on technology substitution rather than behaviour change, the transition may prove more challenging and controversial then hoped. Graham Parkhurst observed that the transition is at an early stage. Those who have acquired electric cars to date have tended to be relatively wealthy or have benefitted from tax breaks via their employment and have access to private charging facilities. Particularly at the lower-cost end of the market, real-world range is not just an anxiety, but a practical limitation requiring behavioural compromises. Those without access to attractive charging tariffs are paying much higher rates. It is unclear whether this inequality will be politically sustainable as EVs become mainstream. ‘Cross pavement solutions’ enable some people to run cables from their domestic supply to cars parked immediately outside on the public street. To the extent these solutions are successful they may sharpen the divide. Battery swap systems offer an alternative technical solution in use in China, but this will take multi-level coordination and time. An existing behavioural solution which could ease the political and practical pressures would be an expansion of attractive car hire facilities. 

Charging Cable Gulley from Guidance on Cross Pavement Solutions.
Credit: Department for Transport/Office for Zero Emissions Vehicles Open Government Licence v3.0

In short, higher quality-of-life and streetscapes in urban areas require that there are fewer cars per person. This should be possible in urban areas, given the growing range of alternatives. As cars are especially useful for some journeys, more opportunities to hire them short-term should be available. If there are fewer cars, it will be easier and cheaper to arrange sufficient electric recharging infrastructure for them. Without reducing the number, the electric vehicle transition may be undeliverable in urban areas. Academic knowledge about the times in people’s lives when it is easiest for them to reduce car ownership, and the psychological factors which can promote change, can support a transition which is behavioural as well as technological.

This blog was written by Graham Parkhurst, Sarah Toy, Ben Clark, and Pete Dyson 

Graham Parkhurst is Professor of Sustainable Mobility and Director at the Centre for Transport and Society, University of the West of England, Bristol. Graham’s research examines the interactions between new technologies and sustainable transport policy. A key focus currently is the electric vehicle transition. 

Sarah Toy is a practitioner-researcher based in the Department of Psychology at the University of Bath, funded by the EPSRC AAPS Research Group. Her research and consultancy work, spanning psychology, political science and engineering, aim to advance understanding of policies to reduce urban car dependency. 

Ben Clark is Associate Professor of Transport Planning at the Centre for Transport and Society, University of the West of England, Bristol. Ben’s research brings together spatial planning, engineering / urban design and the behavioural sciences to understand how to plan healthy built environments that support safe and efficient mobility.   

Pete Dyson is a PhD researcher at the University of Bath, based in the Department of Psychology and funded by the EPSRC AAPS Research Group. Pete investigates the role of social norms in influencing sustainable travel behaviour, focusing on what can be learned and transferred from EV adoption

Mind the Gap: Bridging Street Works and Vulnerable User Accessibility

Author Transport and Society | Posted on

Street works standards must meet the needs of every user. Our project is shaping guidance based on real experiences, ensuring accessibility and efficiency for all. Join us and help make a difference!

Source: Derek Harper (cc-by-sa/2.0)

By Luc Pellecuer, Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering

Unexpected street works forcing you to navigate unmarked diversions without safe crossings can be frustrating. Now imagine facing this scenario while using a wheelchair, pushing a pushchair, or guiding a visually impaired person. What might be merely inconvenient for some becomes a genuine hazard and an accessibility barrier for many.

The Daily Challenge of Street Works

Street works are a necessary part of keeping our cities and towns functional and safe. However, these works often pose significant challenges for vulnerable street users—pedestrians, cyclists, individuals with disabilities, older people, children, and others who rely on safe and accessible pathways. While traffic management practices are guided by UK industry standards and regulations, there is a growing acknowledgement for the need to ensure that these practices are inclusive and prioritise the needs of all street users.

Beyond Inconvenience: The Real Price of Poor Access

Street works can be a source of inconvenience and, more critically, a safety hazard for vulnerable street users. Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) solutions often prioritise vehicular traffic, sometimes leaving pedestrians and cyclists to navigate:

  • Poorly marked diversions
  • Uneven surfaces and temporary footways
  • Inadequate lighting during autumn and winter months
  • Narrow passages that don’t meet minimum width requirements
  • Routes that force pedestrians into traffic or require crossing busy carriageways

For individuals with disabilities, such as those who are visually impaired or use wheelchairs, these challenges can be even more daunting. Older people and children also face unique challenges when navigating street works, which increases the risk of trips and falls or makes them less visible to other street users.

The consequences of neglecting vulnerable street users are far-reaching. When walking or cycling becomes inconvenient or unsafe, people may opt for private cars instead – or abandon their daily activities altogether. This shift not only undermines government efforts to promote active travel but also has detrimental effects on public health, community wellbeing, and environmental sustainability.

Current Standards and Guidance: A Glimpse of Hope

Despite the abundance of literature and industry guidance on traffic management, there is limited focus on creating inclusive solutions that cater to all street users. The “Red Book,” officially known as Safety at Street Works and Road Works: A Code of Practice, serves as a key reference for traffic management practices in the UK. However, the latest edition, dating back to 2013, does not offer guidance on how to include vulnerable users’ needs in the design of TTM. Hopefully, its much-anticipated revision will help address this important gap.

Similarly, the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee (HAUC UK) provides essential resources and operational guidance for street works. I attended the HAUC UK convention in Manchester on 2nd April, where the importance of accommodating the needs of vulnerable street users was emphasized. On this occasion, HAUC UK launched a new app that offers valuable practical guidance on accommodating vulnerable street users, specifically addressing the needs of various disabled user groups.

Bridging the Gap: Our Research Project for Inclusive Streets

To help address these gaps, I am leading a research project aimed at investigating the priorities of TTM design and how decisions are made and implemented within the UK context. Our focus is on understanding how current practices incorporate the needs of vulnerable street users and how they can be improved to meet the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 and Public Sector Equality Duty.

The project has the following key objectives:

  • Safety First: Determine how TTM practices can ensure that vulnerable street users can safely use the highway during construction periods
  • Service Quality: Evaluate whether these users are provided with acceptable levels of service to use the highway as they choose
  • Practical Solutions: Develop actionable guidance for practitioners on adapting traffic engineering practices to create safe and sustainable transport infrastructure

By achieving these objectives, the research will enhance active travel, improve community health and well-being, and align with UK transport policy on sustainable infrastructure.

Gathering Insights: Help Shape Better Streets

As part of our project, I will soon be conducting focus groups and short interviews to gather the perspectives of various vulnerable street users. These sessions will provide invaluable insights into the real-world challenges faced by pedestrians, cyclists, individuals with disabilities, older people, and children during street works. This input will help us advise contractors, utility companies, and local highway authorities on the best ways to accommodate your needs.

I invite anyone who identifies as a vulnerable street user or has relevant experiences to participate in our project. If you are interested, please do not hesitate to contact me. Together, we can work towards creating safer and more inclusive streets for everyone. Because when streets work for the most vulnerable among us, they work better for all of us.

This blog was written by Dr Luc Pellecuer, Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering, University of the West of England, Bristol.

Dr Luc Pellecuer is and member of the Centre for Transport and Society and a Senior lecturer at the School of Engineering where he teaches Transport Engineering. He has always had a keen interest in the sustainable design and management of transport infrastructure. He is particularly passionate about his most recent projects, which focus on developing inclusive transport engineering solutions that serve the most vulnerable member of society. You can contact him at luc.pellecuer@uwe.ac.uk or on LinkedIn: Luc Pellecuer.

Should you look before you cross this Christmas?

Author Transport and Society | Posted on

A festive look at side roads and how priority could be enhanced for people crossing on foot or cycle. An alternative to the King’s Speech or something to read while the sprouts are cooking?

by Jonathan Flower, Senior Research Fellow

Many of us will soon be taking a hopefully well-earned rest over the festive period. At some point, you may put on a paper crown and break into a smile (or not) as someone reads a cracker joke. Well, here are a few, left over from a Christmas party for nerdy Transport Planners, Highway Engineers and others with a niche interest in pedestrian and cycle crossings:

Two hedgehogs are standing on the kerbside, one asks the other: “So, shall we cross? “The other bristles: “No way, look at what happened to the zebra.”

Transport planner: “Have you heard that they’ve updated the Highway Code?”

Friend (stifling a yawn): “Will it work?”

Transport planner: “Well, today I saw a driver stop before turning into a side road to let someone cross… but then I realised they had just run out of fuel!”

It’s like a zoo crossing the road these days. As if toucans, puffins, pelicans and zebras weren’t enough, in the Forest of Waltham I hear that there are elephants too!

We all cross them but spare a thought for the humble side road as you encounter one this Christmas. This blog explores whether changing side road junction designs can enhance priority for pedestrians and cyclists when they cross. It is based on recently published research findings.

In many villages, towns and cities there seems to be an increasing desire to get more people walking, cycling and wheeling. So, when they do, enhancing their priority at junctions where they come into conflict with others, makes sense, but can changes to junction design help?

I have previously considered how we could move away from the ‘traffic in towns’ that has increasingly become the norm since the 1960s to a new normal where our focus becomes ‘people in streets’. The answer may lie in the relationships between regulations, design and behaviour, and how they interact.

Back in January 2022, changes to the Highway Code enhanced priority for people crossing side roads by simplifying the rules on turning. In two recent studies funded by the Road Safety Trust and Transport Scotland (administered by Sustrans) we compared different junction designs and used video to observe how people behaved when using them. We can innovate and change regulations to promote active travel and change designs to do the same, but how will people react? The behaviour of people in these environments is the interesting part and where our innovations succeed or fail.

The studies found that enhanced junctions greatly improve priority for people crossing compared to conventional side roads, without compromising on safety. From the 13,500 observations of drivers turning in and out of side roads at the same time as someone was crossing on foot or cycle, motorists failed to give way to people crossing most of the time at conventional junctions. However, where junctions were enhanced through design or road markings the story was very different and here crossing pedestrians and cyclists were only forced to stop occasionally. Design Priority junctions and Marked Priority junctions with zebras work best. Using road markings other than a zebra is less effective at creating priority for people crossing and appears to be more hazardous for them, despite being the approach most commonly used.

Junction in London with design priority / Photo credit: still from study video, UWE Bristol

The position of the crossing is important. Those nearer the main road like the one shown above offer greater priority for people crossing and are no riskier than ones set further back from the main road. Taking all of this into consideration you might ask yourself whether it would be a good idea to paint zebra markings across side road junctions to make walking easier and safer in local streets. We asked ourselves the same question. Unfortunately, although such zebras (without zig zags, flashing orange lights and 24-hour overhead lighting) are allowed and well understood on private land like hospitals, universities and supermarkets, they are not currently permitted on public roads in the UK. Temporary trials were permitted in Manchester and Cardiff and the results were encouraging. However, in Melbourne simple zebra crossings like these have been permanently installed at prioritised locations to encourage and enable walking and improve safety (permitted under Victoria State law).

A ‘simple’ zebra in Victoria, Australia / Photo credit: Geoff Browne

There is a catch to this solution, even where it is permitted, as there is a risk that enhancing crossing points at some side roads but not others, can lead people to believe that at sites where they are not installed, drivers do not have to give way to a pedestrian who is crossing the street into which the driver is turning. To investigate this, I collaborated with the University of Melbourne and our research found that the risk of this unintended consequence is very real and is something that demands more research.

If at some point during your break you want to discover more, pour yourself a port (other festive drinks and non-alcoholic versions are available) and follow one of the links below, which will take you to the papers that explain the studies and their findings in more detail. Alternatively, when you need to walk off one of those celebratory Christmas meals, watch careful at the side roads and see how people are behaving in the streets around you. Happy Christmas and may we have improved priority for people crossing side roads in the New Year!

Links to the full journal articles:

  1. “Effect of side road junction design enhancements and flows on priority for crossing pedestrians and cyclists”, and
  2. “Zebra crossings at T-intersections: Likelihood of unintended negative consequences for safety and walkability”.

The blog was written by Dr Jonathan Flower, Senior research Fellow at the Centre for Transport and Society (UWE Bristol).

Dr Jonathan Flower MTPS is a Transport Planner and Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Transport and Society. He has a nerdy interest in street design, especially side road crossing points, but he has good intentions, driven by a desire to make streets safer and more attractive places to move around on foot, cycle, or other forms of human-scale, less then cycle-speed mobility. His interest in road safety and his former work in international development has led to two current research projects in Nepal. You can contact him at: jonathan.flower@uwe.ac.uk.

Putting the mobility into transport

Author Transport and Society | Posted on

CTS welcomes Justin Spinney as Professor of Transport and Mobility Studies. Contributing expertise in the fields of cycling, mobility justice, political-economy, and virtual mobilities, Justin aims to complement and extend the scope of research and teaching in CTS and the College of Arts, Technology and Environment.

by Justin Spinney

The first time I met the one and only John Parkin (newly emeritus Professor of Transport Engineering in CTS) I had just started a PhD on Urban Cycling at Royal Holloway University of London. I had seen an announcement for a conference called Velo-City in Paris and thought it might be a good place to get up to speed on all things cycling. With precious little preparation I booked a Eurostar and arrived in Paris late at night with nowhere to stay, and, it turns out, no money: I had just enough cash for one night at #world’sworsthostel. I survived, and the next day made it to the conference knowing absolutely no one. As luck would have it, the first person I started a conversation with happened to be John; I didn’t know then just how good he was or what high regard he was held in. Despite the fact that I clearly had a lot to learn, and certainly knew very little about cycle engineering, he took the time to chat to me, direct me towards some good sessions, and generally made sure I was OK. That was 2003.

Little did I know that 20 years later I would ‘replace’ John (upon his well-earned retirement – no sign of it yet) as Professor of Transport and Mobility Studies in the Centre for Transport and Society at UWE. I use the word ‘replace’ in inverted commas for two reasons: firstly because you can’t replace someone like John – his contribution to the world of cycle engineering, planning, and behaviour change is unlikely to be matched anytime soon. Secondly, because I have (very wisely) not been brought in to replace John; but rather to complement the substantial expertise of CTS in ways that speak to my strengths and research interests in transport and mobility.

A key area of interest for me lies in examining the links between mobility and economic growth, particularly as it relates to post/beyond growth agendas.

There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating that our current approaches to decarbonisation (of all sectors, but most intractably transport) will not meet Net Zero targets in anywhere close to the time we have: Vogel and Hickel 2023 note that whilst the UK is currently the top performer in decoupling emissions from economic growth, at the current rate of progress it will take 220 years to reach Net Zero. In no small part, our obsessions with (poorly distributed) economic growth and technological optimism are inhibiting deep and rapid emissions cuts. As I outlined in the book Understanding Urban Cycling, we need to understand how we can create mobility systems that enable us to recognise, value and count othered forms of social value and personal utility that move away from cost and time as the central metrics of success.

Book Cover for Understanding Urban Cycling by Justin Spinney (source: https://www.routledge.com/Understanding-Urban-Cycling-Exploring-the-Relationship-Between-Mobility-Sustainability-and-Capital/Spinney/p/book/9780367567736)

A further area of interest lies in using post-colonial approaches to examine the ways in which mobility transitions are shaped by policy mobilities; domestic contexts; colonial legacies; and geo-political forces. How for example do existing industrial and labour networks affect sustainable transport policy? How are mobility agendas transmitted, adopted and re-authored and what effects do they have on what are considered viable sustainable mobility choices? I have already begun researching some of these issues in relation to anti-motorcycling policy in Taipei and Taoyuan (Taiwan) and am looking forward to developing them further with (amongst others) Wen-I Lin at NTPU, Paolo Bozzuto at Politecnico Milano, and Jonathan Flower & Graeme Parkhurst at UWE.

I have a long-standing interest in mobility justice, and particularly the ways in which different groups are included/ excluded in transport decision-making and impacted by sustainability policy, design and initiatives.

Extract from Taiwanese newspaper featuring Prof Justin Spinney at the Taoyuan Blueprint conference (source: https://today.line.me/tw/v2/article/60R8KWv)

My previous work on this theme has included Cycling Level of Service and gender; PBSS and surveillance capitalism; Children, cycling and smart cities; Urban cycling safety. There are a whole range of projects related to this theme that I am looking forward to developing with my colleagues in CTS and beyond, most notably work on professional identity and health in van and cargo bike transitions with Daniela Paddeu; research on kids and cycle design guidance with Billy Clayton and Asa Thomas; and energy usage and mode substitution in everyday micro-mobility with Kiron Chaterjee and Muhammad Adeel.

Young child riding on a slope in a BMX park (Source: Photo by 童 彤 on Unsplash)

I’m also looking forward to making a significant contribution to teaching at CTS and the College of Arts, Technology and Environment more broadly, in particular on the excellent MSc Transport Engineering and Planning as module leader for Sustainable Transport Operations and Management; and on the BA Geography as module co-leader for Transport and Mobility. Research-led teaching is an essential part of strong university tuition and I will bring my 20 years of experience in the field of Geography and Mobility Studies to enhance pedagogy and student experience at UWE.

To be here at CTS surrounded by such a talented (and friendly!) group of people who are passionate about helping to create mobility systems fit for the 21st Century and beyond is a real privilege. Even just a few weeks in, I already know I have landed in the right place, and am looking forward to the positive contribution we can make together. Watch this space.

This blog post was written by Professor Justin Spinney  who is Professor of Transport and Mobility Studies at CTS.

Justin Spinney is a human geographer and economic sociologist broadly interested in the intersections between mobility, embodiment, environmental sustainability and technology. He completed his PhD at Royal Holloway University of London in 2007. Straight after PhD he had the good fortune to work with both Professor Tim Jackson (University of Surrey) and Professor Rachel Aldred (at University of East London) as a research fellow. Prior to joining CTS in March 2024, he worked for ten years in the School of Geography and Planning at Cardiff University. He has published widely and been awarded funding from EPSRC, ESRC, Royal Geographical Society and EU ERASMUS+. In 2017 he and his collaborators won the RTPI award for research excellence for the Cycle Boom project.

A turn for the better: implications of the Welsh Government’s world-leading roads policy

Author Transport and Society | Posted on

Welsh transport policy moved on dramatically on the 14th February 2023 with the announcement of its new roads policy. This development emanated from the scrutiny of roads in the current programme in the Welsh Roads Review Panel report, published on the same day. The report contained recommendations for the types of transport infrastructure scheme to support in the future.

What strategies have led to the new policy?

The Welsh Government’s Wales Transport Strategy of March 2021 has three priorities:

  1. to bring services to people in order to reduce the need to travel;
  2. to allow people and goods to move easily from to door by accessible, sustainable and efficient transport services and infrastructure; and
  3. to encourage people to make the change to more sustainable transport.

The ambitions of the transport strategy are to create conditions which are good for people and communities, the environment, the economy and places, and culture and the Welsh language. These ambitions align with the legal framework of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act which is concerned with improving the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales.

The transport strategy is fully aligned with the Net Zero Wales Carbon Budget 2, which has the ambition of reducing emissions from passenger transport by 22% in 2025 and 98% in 2050, reducing the number of car miles travelled per person by 10% by 2030, and increasing the proportion of trips by public transport and active travel to 35% by 2025 and 39% by 2030.

Further policy support is provided by the Future Wales – the National Plan 2040 which sets an aim for people to live in places where travel has low environmental impact and low emissions, with reduced reliance on private vehicles.

The transport strategy adopts a Sustainable Transport Hierarchy to guide decisions on investment in infrastructure, which prioritises walking and cycling (active travel), then public transport, then ultra-low emission vehicles, and finally other private motor vehicles.

(Source: Wales Transport Strategy)

The Welsh Government is demonstrating that strong transport strategy needs to align with planning, environmental and well-being strategies.

What is the new roads policy?

The Welsh Government established a Roads Review Panel to report on road investment so that it is aligned to the delivery of the Wales Transport Strategy ambitions and priorities. The Welsh Government’s roads policy is now that ‘all new roads need to contribute towards achieving modal shift – both to tackle climate change and to reduce congestion on the road network for freight’. The Welsh Government will continue to consider investment in roads in the following circumstances:

  1. To support modal shift and reduce carbon emissions.
  2. To improve safety through small-scale changes.
  3. To adapt to the impacts of climate change.
  4. To provide access and connectivity to jobs and centres of economic activity in a way that supports modal shift.

In more detail, the Roads Review Panel report defines four conditions that investment schemes should meet as follows:

  1. Minimise carbon emissions in construction;
  2. Not increase road capacity for cars;
  3. Not lead to higher vehicle speeds that increase emissions; and
  4. Not adversely affect ecologically valuable sites.

What are the implications?

The Panel report presents many wide-ranging recommendations relating to the delivery and design of schemes. These have included recommendations concerned with design speed, speed limit reviews, road safety and highway maintenance.

With walking and cycling being at the top of the Sustainable Transport Hierarchy, all road schemes should support active travel network development as a primary objective. The Panel report states that all new roads ‘must have appropriate provision for active travel’. This requires comprehensive networks of comfortable and attractive routes to cater for people of all abilities. To create comprehensive active travel networks, the Panel report recommends that rural investment schemes have their boundaries extended so that active travel routes reach the nearest adjacent settlements to the scheme.

Further, the Panel report emphasises guidance provided to designers that states that they ‘should be realistic about cyclists wanting to make adequate progress’ (para 11.16.6 of the Active Travel Act Guidance). This is a direct call to designers, pointing out the need for them to take the guidance seriously. The Panel also states that ‘cycle traffic should preferably be separated from pedestrian traffic to avoid conflict and allow cyclists to travel at a comfortable speed’ (para 9.13.1).

As the Panel’s report suggests, transport planners, highway engineers and traffic engineers need to improve conditions for active travel users in the same way that in the past these improvements have been directed to private car users. The Panel has also pointed to the need for further design development in relation to active travel, particularly highlighting the absence in the design guidance of roundabout designs for rural situations.

Should the Active Travel Act be updated?

The Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 requires local authorities to ‘have regard to the integrated network map for its area’ (Section 6), and then they ‘must in every year secure that there are (a) new active travel routes and related facilities, and (b) improvements of existing active travel routes and related facilities’ (Section 7). Hence the act only creates a legal requirement to ‘plan’, and following that, there is no minimum specified for the quantum of new routes and facilities that need to be secured.

Beyond giving grants, it may be time for the Welsh Government to secure collaborative agreements with local authorities for the delivery of schemes that will then more significantly change the quantum of active travel infrastructure, and hence active travelling by larger proportions of the population.

As well as further development of delivery mechanisms for active travel schemes, the professions need to apply their skills and knowledge to deliver a sustainable transport system for Wales.

The climate emergency has completely changed the task at hand for transport professionals.

This blog was written by John Parkin, Professor of Transport Engineering, Deputy Director, Centre for Transport and Society, University of the West of England, Bristol.

CTS researchers launch innovative international project to study the links between walking environments and people’s experiences, through mobile digital technology

Author Transport and Society | Posted on

Comparing how people experience busy and greener walking routes in Bristol, Auckland, and Buenos Aires, using an innovative walking app.

Walking is something most of us do, no matter our age, income, background, or ethnicity. You would be forgiven for thinking that transport planners know all about it and have used that knowledge to sort our streets, so that they are accessible and pleasant for all those diverse users.

Surprisingly though, it is still not well understood how specific features of the built environment influence people’s perceptions and behaviours (such as for instance choosing or not to walk to a nearby destination).

This is a problem, because we want to move in a carbon-neutral way, yet our street environments might make walking feel unpleasant, dangerous, or even non-feasible for some. And without understanding what the issue is, there is a risk of “making nice places nicer” while failing to address what really matters.

Investigators from the Centre for Transport & Society (Project Lead Dr Tamara Bozovic and Dr Miriam Ricci) are part of an international team launching the project “Mobile digital technology as a tool to study walkability to advance theory, policy, and practice of walking for transport”.

The project is to investigate the associations between objective features and perceptions in three very different locations: Bristol, Auckland, and Buenos Aires, using an innovative walking app (Go Jauntly).

Source: National Street Service, Gehl

In each city, participants will be recruited through local organisations and invited to walk two pre-defined routes: a direct route and a tranquil and green route, both linking the same origin and destination. The app will provide participants information about their walk and prompt questions about the experience.

This pilot study is designed as a steppingstone towards a broader application which would enable comparisons across demographic groups (e.g., ages, or disability statuses) but also broaden the investigated urban contexts (including for instance Asian or North American cities).

The pilot is funded by the Volvo Research and Education Foundation and will run for one year. The team includes researchers from Auckland University of Technology (Professor Erica Hinckson), University of Auckland (Professor Melody Smith), and the National University of San Martin, Buenos Aires (Carla Galeota and Dr Lorena Vescalir), as well as two UK-based businesses: App creators Go Jauntly Ltd, developing the app, and Tranquil City, specialising in the provision and analysis of environmental data serving the app.

This blog post was written by Tamara Bozovic (Project Lead) and Miriam Ricci.

Tamara Bozovic is a transport engineer interested in ways transport systems can help cities become carbon-neutral, liveable, and inclusive, while protecting environmental and human health. After a 15-year practice on three continents, her PhD examined barriers to walking – perceived, measured, understood by professionals and described in technical documents – focusing on a car-centric city and interviewing disabled and non-disabled participants. Now as a research fellow at UWE, Tamara is in charge of gathering data and developing insights on ways urban interventions might support or promote sustainable travel.

Miriam Ricci is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Transport & Society at the University of the West of England, Bristol (UK). Her key research interest is sustainable and equitable urban mobility, with a focus on making walking and public transport more inclusive, attractive and accessible to all. She has extensive expertise in qualitative and participatory social research, applied to a diverse range of topics, such evaluation of sustainable mobility interventions, public engagement with transport innovations and the study of transport disadvantage and social exclusion.

How Sustainable is the Electric Car?

Author Transport and Society | Posted on

A new book edited by Graham Parkhurst and Billy Clayton tackles the critical question as to whether the rise of the electric car represents an important contribution to sustainable mobility.

The extent to which the transition from internal combustion engine cars to electric cars represents an important contribution to sustainable mobility is the central question addressed by a new book edited by CTS colleagues Graham Parkhurst and Billy Clayton . Given the socioeconomic importance of the car, and its impacts on the environment, ‘Electrifying Mobility: Realising a Sustainable Future for the Car’ takes a multidisciplinary approach, with its authors and perspectives drawn from sociology, social and environmental psychology, business studies, political studies, sociotechnical transition studies and environmental science, as well as transport planning and geography.

Across twelve chapters organised in four parts, the narrative considers how ‘electrification’ alters the inter-relationships between society, the economy and the built environment that have coevolved over the last century, including the practices of organisation and production of the automotive industry itself. Examination of the extent to which electric cars could offer a sufficiently environmentally benign ‘technical fix’ to avoid the need for behaviour change is balanced by exploration of the extent to which the electric car is changing both government policies and citizens’ attitudes, behaviours, and traveller ‘experiences’. Major technical and delivery challenges are acknowledged, notably that battery technology is improving, but remains constrained and expensive, and the need to plan and fund the delivery of a publicly-available charging network as a critical ‘dependency’ for mass uptake. However, technological opportunities are also noted, through integration with trends for higher automation and digital connectivity of vehicles, and the shared mobility that those changes may encourage.

In the final chapter, Parkhurst and Clayton conclude that the once tentative and contested transition to electric cars as now being unstoppable, but with the interrelated factors of vehicle range and total cost of ownership remaining as key moderators of its speed and nature.

Electrification is also seen as being far from the harmonious and smooth representations of its public image; instead recreating long-standing local conflicts over road space for moving and parked vehicles and new forms of global contest for access to material resources.

Also acknowledged is the long timeline of transition, and the problem presented by an established global fleet of some billion internal combustion engine vehicles. Potential enhancements to the environmental sustainability of the transition are mooted, such as a greater role for retrofit battery-electric conversions and new ways of paying for the full costs of road use, but in the final analysis, the answer to the fundamental question must lie in the wider context of mobility practices and policies, in other words, a sustainable future for the car implies not just a new way of powering it, but a different role for the car in both the economy and society.

This blog post was written by Graham Parkhurst who is Professor of Sustainable Mobility and directs the research centre

Electrifying Mobility: Realising a Sustainable Future for the Car was published in hardback and electronically by Emerald in October 2022.

Online shopping and home deliveries: how can we reduce carbon emissions?

Author Transport and Society | Posted on

Do you know how much carbon you produce when you buy something? The UK is the third market worldwide for online shopping. Read the post to find out how we can decarbonise last-mile deliveries.

by Daniela Paddeu

Have you ever wondered how much carbon you generate when you buy a product? An increasing number of people look for organic or sustainable products, buy from sustainable companies, try to reduce plastics/packaging. We might feel we are sustainable consumers, but we still want our products to be delivered on the next day, sometimes the same day or even the same hour. Because it is convenient and appealing. However, it is also definitely not sustainable.

The UK is the first market in Europe for e-commerce, and the third in the world, just after China and the U.S.

Buying is easy: you can buy whatever you want, have it delivered whenever you want, and you can also return it if you don’t like it. It’s easy! Consumers buy much more than they need, and 25% of products are returned. This generates an increased volume of van movements (+106% increase in the last 25 years), and numbers are expected to significantly grow in the future.

Therefore, it is urgent to design and undertake actions to reduce the negative impact of last-mile deliveries. This was the main driver of the CoDe ZERO project. The project explored stakeholders’ perspective towards sustainable solutions to decarbonise urban freight, focussing on the North of England. Together with key freight stakeholders based in the North, we co-designed a roadmap with a series of solutions that can be implemented in the next 20 years to reduce carbon emissions from freight movements in urban areas.

The challenge of changing behaviour…

Findings show that stakeholders understand the importance of decarbonising urban freight to achieve the net zero target by 2050 (or even sooner). They also foresee challenges, mainly related to the development of efficient cleaner technological solutions and to behaviour/organisational change. They believe that there will not be a single perfect solution. Instead, urban freight decarbonisation will require the integration of a series of technical solutions and organisational/behavioural change.

Electrification and new fuels seem to be the most promising solution to decarbonise urban freight.

Among the technical solutions, electrification and new fuels (e.g., hydrogen) are seen as the most promising ways to achieve urban freight decarbonisation. However, their full implementation might require time, especially due to technological development, and other solutions would be needed to start reducing carbon emissions in the short term. These include, for example, the use of cleaner fuels (e.g., biogases), urban freight consolidation schemes, and the use of e-cargo bikes together with micro-consolidation. However, there might be some big challenges to implement these solutions, and a lot of uncertainty towards their effectiveness. For example, big logistics operators already consolidate at a very optimal level. So, are we sure this is going to be a commercially/operationally viable option? Also, electric might not be the only net zero solution for an urban environment. Can Compressed Natural Gas or Liquefied Natural Gas have a role given the goal is net zero not absolute zero?

Consolidation schemes, and collaborative schemes in general, were identified as being equally “powerful” compared to more technological solutions. However, bigger companies might be in a stronger position in terms of managing and sharing information and operations. So, what if some players gain a greater advantage than others, and smaller operators are not strong enough to survive?

How do we get there?

In general, the findings of the project indicate that there might be a range of solutions to decarbonise urban freight, but it is not clear how these solutions should be practically adopted, and where responsibilities lie. Considering future policy and research, a strong final question about urban freight decarbonisation remains: how do we get there?

If you want to find more, you can read the final report.

This blog post was written by Dr Daniela Paddeu who is a senior researcher (freight specialist) at CTS.

Welcome to the Centre for Transport and Society blog!

Author Transport and Society | Posted on

Welcome to the Centre for Transport and Society blog where we plan to share with you the latest updates from our research centre.

The aim of CTS is furthering understanding and influence on the interactions between mobility, lifestyles, and society in a context of technological change.

We design, plan, and deliver a range of research works on six core themes, with integrated multi-disciplinary knowledge within transport and society.

Theme 1 – Transport infrastructure and design

This theme is about designing infrastructure to meet travel needs by creating systems for movement that are efficient, attractive, comfortable and safe to use. They need to minimise embodied carbon, and they need to assist in promoting travel that itself minimises carbon emissions, and other adverse environmental impacts such as air pollution and noise.

CTS has been engaged in empirical research connected with human scale and vehicle movement in the street environment. This has involved exploring the links between design, behaviour and regulation. Empirical research linked with cycling has been undertaken, for example relating to eye movement of cyclists and passing distances of motor traffic. CTS has been involved in drafting standards and guidance including Design Manual for Roads and Bridges CD195 Designing for cycle traffic, Local Transport Note 1/20, the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans Technical Guidance, and the forthcoming Manual for Streets 3.

Side road crossing behaviour research has investigated both continuous footways and marked priority side road crossings with a view to evidencing and developing further current design guidance. We have also undertaken trials to measure the trust of pedestrians and cyclists in automated vehicles.

Theme 2 – Societal change, technology, and transport futures

This theme is about understanding what the future may be like, and how we should design systems to address current and future needs of an evolving society. There has been a long co-evolution of travel demand with technological development. This co-evolution has resulted in new demand for travel  in response to the invention of new transport systems, recently for instance, such as micro-mobility. It has also worked the other way around with travel aspirations influencing by transport systems, for example in relation to levels of comfort and attractiveness. Innovations in other sectors, such as the invention of the telephone and the diffusion of refrigeration, have also influence connectivity and the desire to travel, and the need to transport goods.

Digitalisation has significantly increased dramatically in the last 20 years, and digital services and products have changed people’s lives and their preferences to both digital and also physical interactions and activities. Technological development has the power to disrupt the ways we live our lives, and the future may offer a range of technologically facilitated opportunities, including for example perhaps automated vehicles, shared mobility, drone deliveries, and even flying taxis. In addition, the development of newer, less or zero carbon intensity and cleaner technologies are emerging to support pathways to reduce impacts on the climate.

Theme 3 – Travel behaviour, lifestyles, and the life course

At the core of our research at CTS is the development of a body of knowledge around travel behaviour. This research draws on empirical research informed by psychology and sociology. We seek to understand the extent to which travel behaviour is pre-meditated for different types of trip, the degree to which novel information or social relationships influence choices, and the extent to which reported attitudes to future travel behaviour can predict behaviour. CTS has developed a strong international academic reputation in this thematic area and has also provided expert advice to national and local policymakers. This theme covers aspects specifically relating to sub-sections of the population, for example, in particular the ageing population, and the emerging behaviours of younger generations, and those who are neuro-diverse or are physically disabled as a result of the transport environment.

Theme 4 – Sustainable transport policies and solutions

Sustainable transport is concerned with creating attractive options which reduce the environmental consequences of travel choices, whilst also promoting greater equality of accessibility. Walking and cycling, as very low environmental impact modes which also encourage a healthier population, are central to this theme. Collective mobility solutions including shared ownership and use of transport assets are also important, as well as cleaner technologies (e.g., electrification, clean fuels). The theme seeks to understand the barriers to a greater role for sustainable mobility options and to develop knowledge to support their development to drive transport decarbonisation and reach the net zero target by 2050.

Theme 5 – Social impacts of transport

The way transport systems are design can have a significant impact on people’s ability to access to key local services and activities (e.g., jobs, goods, healthcare, education, leisure). A lack of accessibility may reinforce the social exclusion of particular demographies, for example, depending on the geography of the area they live in (e.g., urban or rural), coupled with their particular needs (e.g., mobility impairment, household structure and age profile), and economic status (e.g., disposable income). This theme is about understanding how to take into consideration social needs and expectations when designing and planning for people’s travel in such a way as to avoid social injustice and support equity. Our work in this area again leads into policy and planning practice.

Theme 6 – Towards sustainable freight

Freight transport represents a key driver of the economic prosperity of a region or a city. However, it is responsible for one third of UK transport carbon emissions, with road freight (e.g., trucks and vans) being the main contributor. The increasingly significant role that e-commerce and home deliveries have had in the last ten years has created great economic advantages for companies. However, inefficient management of urban freight flows can generate road congestion, poorer air quality, visual intrusion, increased risk of collisions and injuries, and a generally negative impact on urban accessibility for people as well as goods. This theme is about exploring the challenges and opportunities in planning and design of sustainable freight transport systems.

We look forward to sharing CTS’s development and future research, but in the meantime, you can find out more about our latest research activities, seminars and events by visiting our website and following us on Twitter.

Read more on our website

Follow us on Twitter

_______________________________________________

This blog post was written by Dr Daniela Paddeu who is a senior researcher at CTS and is the freight specialist of the research centre.

Back to top

Follow this blog

Get every new post delivered right to your inbox.