CTS | Centre for Transport and Society blog

If “exercise is medicine” could active travel be the prescription? Reflections on the relationship between active travel and social prescribing

Transport and Society | 26 March 202626 March 2026

With the health benefits of walking and cycling long established, social prescribing offers a promising route into active travel that starts with individuals’ health and wellbeing but can also influence the way they travel locally.

Feet and shadows of people walking on a sunny path. Photo credit: Age Cymru (Unsplash.com)

By Caroline Bartle, Visiting Researcher; Eda Beyazit, Research Fellow; and Asa Thomas, Research Fellow in CTS

In the week that marks National Social Prescribing Day in the UK, we reflect on the findings of an innovative pilot project in Bath & North East Somerset (B&NES) that introduced a range of walking, wheeling and cycling schemes into the portfolio of activities to which residents could be referred through social prescribing. As evaluators of the project, CTS researchers analysed participant surveys and interviewed participants, activity leaders and social prescribers to explore experiences and impacts of the project. Our evaluation found positive impacts in the form of a modest overall increase in walking and improved attitudes to walking, as well as narrative accounts of marked improvements – some of them profound – in many participants’ wellbeing. What can we learn from this about the potential benefits – and challenges – of a closer integration of active travel and public health programmes?

To set the scene we first outline the context and content of the B&NES project, called The Active Way, and the steps that led up to it.

What is social prescribing?

Social prescribing is the process of referring a patient into non-medical activities in their community to help address practical, social and emotional needs that affect their health and wellbeing. It offers an additional route of support alongside, or instead of, traditional pharmaceutical interventions. It can be particularly helpful for people who have one or more long term health conditions, and/or complex social needs which affect their wellbeing, including social isolation [1, 2].

The benefits of physical activity and exercise to physical and mental health are well established; hence, social prescribing referrals to activities that focus on physical activity are popular, alongside arts, culture and nature activities (e.g. ‘Green Prescribing’). Here in the UK, interventions centring on active travel, such as group-based walking, wheeling and cycling activities, are increasingly being added to the options to which an individual may be referred, via bodies such as the Primary Care Networks. 

What constituted ‘active travel’ in this project?

Definitions of active travel differ, but here it comprised walking, cycling and the use of wheeled mobilities such as manual or powered wheelchairs, mobility scooters and rollators. (‘wheeling’).

Two people looking at the referral portal to The Active Way on a computer screen. Photo credit: Tim Rawlings.

Embedding active travel schemes within social prescribing

UK Government support for this move was heralded by the Department for Transport’s 2020 strategy for cycling and walking – ‘Gear Change’ – which made a commitment to fund a national pilot Active Travel Social Prescribing (ATSP) programme. Managed by Active Travel England, the programme was innovative in bringing together the two complementary objectives of increasing active travel and improving health, with ancillary economic and environmental objectives in the form of potential reductions in the use of some NHS services, and the replacement of some car journeys by active travel modes. It thus represents a bold ambition in terms of translating the vision of integrating physical activity, health of individuals, reduced car dependence, and health of the planet, into reality through practical local actions.

The Active Way pilot in Bath & North East Somerset

B&NES was one of 11 local authorities to obtain funding through the 3-year ATSP programme, starting in 2023. The Active Way activities were concentrated in and around the rural Somer Valley area, and aimed to address needs identified by the local community relating to under-represented groups, high levels of deprivation and health inequalities. People could either be referred (for example, by GP practices or social prescribing link workers), or they could sign up directly (self-referral).

The activities offered included: led walks, such as a walking and photography group; led cycle rides; inclusive cycling using adapted cycles; cycle maintenance workshops; and loaning out of e-bikes. Some activities did not focus on walking and cycling directly but instead aimed to improve general health and wellbeing; for example: seated dance classes; and mentoring coupled with a wearable device that allowed participants to track their physical activity. By February 2026, nearly 2000 residents had participated in one or more of some 18 schemes, many run by local community organisations. In addition, over 4,200 people took part in an online game involving walking, cycling, running, scooting and wheeling.

Five people cycling along on a cycle path though trees. Photo credit: Tim Rawlings.

Outcomes of the pilot

Our evaluation focussed on three primary aims of the ATSP programme:

(1) Increased active travel for utility purposes,

(2) Increased physical activity, and

(3) Improved health and wellbeing.

We found evidence of positive impacts among Active Way participants in all three of these areas. The survey analysis found a modest increase in active travel and a statistically significant increase in the frequency and variety of participation in physical activities generally. These were small changes spread broadly across the sample and concentrated on changes to walking rather than cycling.

Qualitative responses were much stronger on the improvements in health and wellbeing. Indeed, some of those who had participated in activities over a period of weeks or months characterised the experience as transformative to their wellbeing, which emanated from both the physical activity and a growing sense of social connectedness.

Many of those interviewed highlighted their increased participation in walking and cycling recreationally, although this had translated only rarely into using active travel modes as a means of transport (for example, walking to local shops instead of driving). There were some examples, however, of people who were already physically active and had needed only a small nudge to start (or re-start) cycling or walking for utility trips. The survey analysis found positive changes in attitudes and confidence that may in time lead to more walking or cycling for transport. However, given the rural nature of the area, this is likely to require considerable improvements to infrastructure; many interviewees spoke of poor-quality pavements and busy roads that made walking, wheeling, and cycling for local journeys difficult.

Three people poised to set off on e-bikes. Photo credit: Tim Rawlings.

Reflections on the social prescribing of active travel

So what can we learn from these findings about the practicalities of integrating public health and active travel goals through policies and local actions?

Mainstreaming the ‘prescription’ of recreational walking, wheeling and cycling

The pilot provided further evidence that recreational walking, wheeling and cycling activities can support health and wellbeing. Social prescribing helps formalise this relationship and widens the reach of walking, wheeling and cycling to people who may struggle to engage for reasons of poor health, social isolation and/or economic deprivation. Participant accounts of wellbeing improvements as a result of the activities appear fully consistent with the goals of social prescribing more broadly. This suggests a strong argument for mainstreaming walking, wheeling and cycling within the portfolio of activities to which people may be referred through social prescribing routes.

Prescribing ‘active travel as transport’ is more problematic

The relationship between walking, wheeling and cycling as means of transport, and the prescribing of these as a form of health intervention, is more complex. This is partly about the availability (or lack) of infrastructure such as good-quality pavements, cycle paths, lighting and crossings. It is difficult to make a strong health and wellbeing case for walking and cycling for utility trips if such trips are fraught with anxiety about negotiating traffic or uneven surfaces. In rural areas such as the Somer Valley this is compounded by the longer distances between local services than is typically found in cities; the distances may create an additional barrier for people with health and mobility challenges.

Aligning behaviour change programmes with transport infrastructure improvements that support active travel

The Active Way is essentially a behaviour change intervention, although small-scale physical infrastructure improvements such as new signage did fall within its remit. It has been successful in improving people’s readiness for active travel by building knowledge, confidence and motivation, by improving physical capabilities to walk and cycle, and changing people’s perceptions of what constitutes a ‘walkable’ or cyclable’ distance – especially if they have been introduced to an e-bike. This provides a solid basis for behaviour change towards walking and cycling, not just for exercise and recreation, but also for travel. However, it really needs to happen in parallel with larger-scale infrastructure improvements to the network, such as those planned through the Somer Valley Links project (works start this year), if typical barriers to travel behaviour change are to be overcome. The challenges of aligning different types of transport intervention, supported by different funding streams, are by no means new, but need to be addressed if the benefits of prescribing walking and cycling are to feed through more smoothly into the substitution of some car trips car by active modes.

The rural planning dimension

Finally, and taking a further step back, it can be argued that rural areas are ‘rural’ in character for many reasons, one being a scarcity of services, which may be appealing to many who want to live in a peaceful environment with access to nature. However, this same spatial characteristic can create isolation when everyday opportunities for encountering other people reduce – for example if local shops, church halls or pubs close. In communities where such shared spaces remain, isolation may be less pronounced. In this context it is unsurprising that so many participants placed value on the social interaction these activities provided. If social prescribing and active travel aim to get people out of their houses and physically active, but do this by asking them to undertake long rural trips by active modes, this cannot be resolved only by fixing the problems in transport infrastructure and increasing travel opportunities. It may also require the reconstruction of social spaces by incorporating new spatial planning and design practices more commonly used in urban settings, for example ‘placemaking’ initiatives such as pop-up markets. Thus, socio-spatial planning also needs to be a part of the wider process.

The rural focus of The Active Way may have given it a distinctive flavour within the national ATSP programme, which incorporates a mix of urban and rural local authorities, but our evaluation suggests nonetheless that there would be clear benefits to rolling out the social prescribing of walking, wheeling and cycling further, or at least maintaining current levels (within the context of limited budgets). We await the results from the other ATSP areas with interest.

Acknowledgement: we are grateful to B&NES Council for reviewing this article and giving permission for us to publish the information on The Active Way contained herein. The reflections presented here remain those of the authors.

[1] NHS England » Social prescribing: Reference guide and technical annex for primary care networks

[2] Polley M. & Sabey A. (2022). An evidence review of social prescribing and physical activity. NASP.

This blog was written by Caroline Bartle, Eda Beyazit, Asa Thomas

Dr Caroline Bartle is a Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Transport & Society, University of the West of England (UWE Bristol UWE). She was formerly a Senior Research Fellow in CTS, where she undertook research and evaluation on sustainable transport and travel behaviour, including heading up the CTS evaluation of The Active Way from 2023 to 2025.

Dr Eda Beyazit is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Transport & Society, University of the West of England, UWE Bristol. Eda completed her DPhil in transport geography at the Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford. Her research lies in the intersection of transport-related inequalities, transport poverty, urban periphery, gender, and precarity.

Dr Asa Thomas a Research Fellow at the Centre for Transport & Society, University of the West of England, UWE Bristol. His PhD research was conducted at the Active Travel Academy at the University of Westminster and his research centres around active travel in under-represented groups – particularly children and young people, as well as the design of street environments.

Communicating mobility inequalities to diverse groups: notes from the Milano Conference

Transport and Society | 2 December 202513 January 2026

Mobility inequalities are complex and influenced by numerous factors. To address these, we must improve our communication methods and broaden our perspective to encompass policies from around the globe.

Opening session of the Inequalities Conference, Milano Triennale, 30 October 2025 – Credit: Photo by the author.

by Eda Beyazit, Research Fellow in Active Travel and Micromobility

When I was invited to speak at the closing conference of the Milano Triennale 2025, themed Inequalities, as one of the panellists, I found myself facing a familiar question: how do we talk about mobility inequalities in a way that resonates beyond academic circles? As someone who has worked in the field of transport and mobility for nearly two decades, preparing for this event meant reflecting on how to make complex issues accessible to a wider audience, even if these are experienced by the majority on a daily basis.

The one-day conference, organised by Politecnico di Milano, in celebration of World Cities Day, was inspiring, with panels exploring themes ranging from access to clean water to the equity challenges of the digital transition. The final session brought together international voices from local authorities and supranational organisations discussing the role of cities and metropolitan areas in addressing inequalities.

Our panel on Mobility, Migration and Inequalities, organised and chaired by Paola Pucci and Giovanni Lanza, included three panellists and focused on three guiding questions:

How can mobility inequalities affect contemporary society?
What specific issues have you addressed through your research?
Which new perspectives, policies, and projects can help reduce them?

In this post, I would like to share some of my reflections, not through the lens of academic writing, but as a conversation about how mobility, care, and social and spatial inequalities intersect. For transport enthusiasts, though, I’ve included a selection of links to academic sources that might be of interest.

Mobility is power-driven: Stories from the peripheries

To mobility scholars, mobility is never just about getting from one place to another. It’s deeply connected to power dynamics. Our ability to move freely often depends on who we are: our income, gender, age, social class, or race. Can a wheelchair user get to work independently without needing help? Can children walk safely to school on their own? How long is the daily commute of a migrant woman living on the edges of Milan or a woman who crosses borders daily to earn a living in sub-Saharan Africa?

A woman walking across a field and the railway lines to reach a bus stop (Istanbul) – Credit: Photo by the author.

Yet, these aren’t only questions about social norms or justice. They’re also about who decides how we design our cities, towns, and transport systems. Policy and planning still tend to imagine an able-bodied, middle-aged man, likely a driver, as the “typical” transport user. This approach leaves out so many people who face overlapping challenges, caring for others, juggling time, or struggling to afford transport, and adds further burdens on them.

In one of my research projects, I studied women domestic workers living in Istanbul’s peripheries, most of them with migrant backgrounds. During the pandemic, when public transport services were reduced, they created their own system of shared mobility. They organised with drivers of school and factory shuttles, through their social networks, to run informal minibus routes between their neighbourhoods and the gated communities where they worked.

These collective arrangements enabled them to remain employed. In many ways, this was an example of commoning mobilities – practices of cooperation, trust, and solidarity, in this case, when formal systems failed.

Yet I also describe these as precarious mobilities: risky, fragile, and dependent on informal arrangements. The shuttles could be overcrowded or unsafe, the vehicles are unlicensed, and the women may be anxious about police inspections. And, of course, many domestic workers lacked the networks or resources to join such systems at all.

A minibus dropping off female domestic workers heading to one of the gated communities on the outskirts of Istanbul – Credit: Snapshot from the documentary ‘Servis: commoning commutes’ by Erhan Kugu and the author.

Mobility inequalities, in this sense, affect far more than transport choices: the processes that lead to those choices, and even the very ability to be mobile, are shaped by power dynamics within societies. Moreover, such inequalities tend to deepen with intersecting challenges – as seen in this example, being a migrant woman, a domestic worker, and living in the peripheries of a metropolitan city.

Beyond infrastructure

There are growing efforts to make mobility more inclusive, but many focus primarily on infrastructure, including new subways, air-conditioned buses, bus rapid transit systems, and paved rural roads. These are vital, but not everyone benefits equally from them. Some people even bear the negative consequences of these projects, such as displacement, gentrification, unsafe walking conditions, pollution, or reduced access to their livelihoods.

Credit: Photo by De an Sun on Unsplash

We also need to understand mobility as something social and emotional: a means to reduce isolation and loneliness, build confidence, and become part of community life. Transport systems should allow people of all ages, genders, and backgrounds to move with dignity.

Planners have been discussing participation for over fifty years. To me, it still is the most vital step. What really matters is developing participatory methods that give local residents and communities a genuine voice in shaping mobility policies and projects, not in a tokenistic way, but as equal partners. This approach involves methods of listening, caring, and co-creating the city together.

So we need to consider not only the distribution of transport resources, but also the processes that lead to this distribution: whose needs count, and who gets to decide? The call to think through different forms of justice, such as recognition and procedural, shouldn’t be limited to achieving just transitions to low-carbon transport, even though that has rightly become a significant priority in transport research. If we aim to build inclusive transport systems from the start, the transition to greener mobility will follow more naturally. In other words, a fair transition shouldn’t be a by-product of decarbonisation efforts but rather the foundation of them and that justice-led planning can make environmental goals more achievable.

Looking ahead

Drawing on my and others’ work on gender and mobility, I believe we should start treating mobility as part of a city’s care infrastructure, something that supports not only economic life but also social connection and community care. Seeing transport as a caring system changes how we prioritise investments: from big roads to safe pavements, from faster metro lines to more reliable local buses. Istanbul’s free travel card for mothers with children under four, or Bogotá’s “care blocks,” presented by its former Mayor Claudia López at the conference, linking transport with daycare and community facilities, are inspiring examples. Care infrastructure should not only support recognised carers, but also help communities look after one another, an infrastructure of solidarity as much as of movement.

There’s also the question of how we communicate our messages. As researchers, we often rely on reports and journal articles, but these rarely reach the people who make decisions or those who live the inequalities we study. We need more creative and accessible ways to share knowledge and to build stronger collaborations between planners, civil society, and communities. In my own work, I’ve found that storytelling, especially through documentary film (coming soon!) can make invisible inequalities visible. It builds empathy and opens space for dialogue. Similarly, running small-scale street experiments or co-creating public space projects with local communities can generate real, tangible change. Advocacy, when combined with lived experience, can lead to action.

Tram passing next to a protected cycle lane, Amsterdam – Credit: Photo by author

When I worked with domestic workers in Istanbul, I saw how migration plays a crucial role in shaping everyday mobility inequalities. This reminds me that we must reach beyond our disciplinary comfort zones to engage with labour geography, migration studies, and fields like data science, AI, and technology design. Mobility scholars already have rich evidence on how inequalities emerge. If we can engage with these disciplinary areas on the basis of justice thinking, we can translate that knowledge into policies and plans that reduce anticipated mobility inequalities.

This blog was written by Dr Eda Beyazit, Research Fellow in Active Travel and Micromobility at the Centre for Transport and Society, University of the West of England, Bristol.

Dr Eda Beyazit previously worked as an Associate Professor in Urban Planning at the Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, and founded the IstanbulON Urban Mobility Lab. Eda was an Urban Studies Foundation international fellow at the University of Manchester between 2022 and 2023. Eda completed her DPhil in transport geography at the Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford, focusing on transport-related socio-spatial inequalities. Lately, her interests include gender, precarity, and the urban periphery.

Who governs the skies? Shaping the future of drone logistics

Transport and Society | 15 September 202515 September 2025

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:

Transport system risks – including cybersecurity, integrity, digital infrastructure, and impacts on general aviation.
Local authority readiness – planning gaps, lack of resources, and the need to align drones with broader environmental goals.
Societal factors – public trust, perceptions of safety, and questions of fairness and accessibility.
Regulation – liability, insurance, privacy, and the lack of integration between national aviation rules and local planning.
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:

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.
Working with industry
- Support collaborative pilots and demonstration projects.
- Build public-private partnerships to help SMEs innovate.
- Encourage data-sharing to inform future regulation.
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.
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.
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.

Should you look before you cross this Christmas?

Transport and Society | 11 December 202413 January 2025

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:

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.

Transforming Transport: key insights from the 2024 CTS Symposium

Transport and Society | 5 August 202412 September 2024

On the 18th of July we have hosted our 2024 CTS Symposium, to celebrate our Research Centre’s research interests and achievements.

We were very pleased to welcome 74 delegates and see that they found the day enjoyable and interesting – 85% gave an overall rating of 80/100 or above, and levels of satisfaction were high across the content, networking opportunities, and organisation.

We would like to share with you a summary of the key take-aways from the event, as well as links to the recording of the different sessions, in case you missed the event.

CTS Director Professor Graham Parkhurst opened the proceedings by briefly introducing the revised CTS research themes as:

Governance and equity

Transport planning and placemaking

Technological change

Travel behaviour and the mobility experience

He then invited Professor Enda Hayes, Director of Research and Enterprise for the School of Architecture and Environment in which CTS is based, to welcome delegates on behalf of the University.

Keynote speaker

The Symposium opened with a keynote by Councillor Ed Plowden, incoming Chair of Bristol City Council’s Transport and Connectivity Committee, employee of Sustrans, and former UWE Master’s student.

Ed presented “Transport in Bristol – Regaining momentum”. Some key lessons learned from Ed’s presentation are:

Balancing evidence-based policy with innovative approaches – there is a need to integrate solid evidence into transport policy while also considering innovative, less traditional approaches to create a more sustainable transport system. Ed highlighted the challenge of moving away from the conventional “predict and provide” model towards a more flexible and forward-thinking “decide and provide” approach. Ed emphasised that we have a lot of evidence-based policies and possible projects, but it is difficult to determine which ones will be the most effective and affordable mix to take forward to decarbonise transport in Bristol at pace, whilst keeping the City moving and bringing the majority with us.

Addressing transport and accessibility issues – Ed acknowledged that there are significant transport issues in Bristol, including high car ownership, congestion, poor air quality, and issues with bus services. He stressed the importance of improving transport accessibility, particularly for disabled people, to enhance the overall transport system for everyone.

Collaborative governance and urban planning – with the transition to a committee-based system in the City Council, Ed advocated for better collaboration across parties to address transport challenges. He outlined several priorities, such as managing demand, enhancing public transport, and focusing on urban planning to reduce reliance on cars and promote more sustainable transport modes.

Here you can find Ed’s presentation and video recording.

CTS’s research showcase – break-out sessions

We then had two break-out sessions, to share some insights from our latest research projects and interests.

Travel behaviour and the mobility experience

This was one of the two parallel break-out sessions and examined active travel as daily practice and potential.

Dr Ben Clark presented a review of evidence on the extent to which new cycling infrastructure increases levels of cycling and encourages modal shift from car travel.

If you want to see Ben’s presentation, click here.

Dr Asa Thomas introduced ongoing research as part of the Optimised Walking School Bus Planning project, and highlighted several trends related to school travel in the UK with a focus on the long-term decline in walking, particularly for distances over a mile.

If you want to see Asa’s presentation, click here.

Tom Eadie examined the implications of designing 15-minute cities for all population groups, including, for example, older people, and assessed the accessibility needs of different social groups.

If you want to see Tom’s presentation, click here.

Here you can find the video recording of this session.

Governance and technological change

This was a parallel break-out session, and considered a diverse set of topics related to governance, including drone deliveries, electric cars, and more inclusive Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans.

Dr Eda Beyazit shared insights on her research and experience of gender equality and social inclusion in sustainable urban mobility planning, drawing upon her experience in Istanbul. If you want to see Eda’s presentation, click here.

Dr Daniela Paddeu discussed specific uncertainties related to governance for drone last-mile deliveries, mainly related to regulations and liability issues, but also public acceptance, social benefit, and integration of drones to the wider transport system, especially in a mixed-traffic environment. If you want to see Daniela’s presentation, click here.

Professor Graham Parkhurst explored scenarios in which transitioning from ICE to EV is most likely to achieve emissions reduction targets while maintaining a viable future for the auto industry. If you want to see Graham’s presentation, click here.

Here you can find the video recording of this session.

Plenary sessions

During the second part of the morning, we had two plenary sessions.

We heard from our new appointed Professor Justin Spinney, who presented “Driven to care: types of caring, journey qualities, personal mediating factors”. In his presentation, Justin reflected on the increasing demand for cars from a sociological perspective, drawing on a small RTPI funded project in collaboration with Andrew Ivins at Cardiff University. He highlighted the significant impact of ‘social acceleration’ leading to tight schedules and the lack of routinisation in modern life, driven by technological advancements such as smartphones and automobility.

Justin pointed out that these societal changes have reshaped the qualities people value in transport systems, emphasising time-saving, flexibility, and load-carrying capacity. Justin argued that our current transport systems often fail to accommodate the intensified and diversified schedules of modern life, leading to increased car dependency. He also emphasises the importance of rethinking what motivates our transport choices in non-wage mobility contexts to prioritise care over traditional metrics like time and productivity . The need to recognise the changing motivations and qualities that citizens require is essential if we are to develop public and active modes of transport that fit for the 21^st Century. Here you can find Justin’s presentation and video recording.

The plenary followed with a presentation from Professor Glenn Lyons, our Mott MacDonald Professor of Future Mobility at UWE Bristol. Glenn presented: “Triple Access Planning – A fairytale new beginning?”. Within his presentation, Glenn caricatured the rather gloomy sense of the paradigm of ‘predict and provide’ in which traditional transport planning has sat before pointing to the colourful new ‘kingdom’ on offer. He told us about his experience with the New Zealand Ministry of Transport (which happened ten years ago), where a shift to the “decide-and-provide” approach was identified as necessary.

This led to the development of Triple Access Planning (TAP), which integrates transport, land use, and digital connectivity while also accommodating uncertainty. TAP promotes a more holistic, resilient, user-centric, and collaborative approach to planning. Glenn also shared the publication of the “Triple Access Planning for Uncertain Futures Handbook” which serves as a guide for practitioners to implement this new approach. TAP challenges conventional methods, advocating for visionary, inclusive, and sustainable transport solutions that better address the evolving needs of society, marking a significant paradigm shift in transport planning. Here you can find Glenn’s presentation and video recording.

‘Yes Minister’ Panel discussion

The plenary session followed with a panel discussion in which the panellists were asked to imagine themselves as special advisers for the new Government and had to brief the new Secretary of State for Transport.

In the King’s speech at the state opening of parliament on Wednesday 17^th July the incoming Labour government laid out its five strategic transport priorities, supported by the Secretary of State for Transport’s new motto for her department, “our purpose is simple: move fast and fix things”:

Improving performance on the railways and driving forward rail reform

Improving bus services and growing usage across the country

Transforming infrastructure to work for the whole country, promoting social mobility and tackling regional inequality

Delivering greener transport , and

Better integrating transport networks.

Emeritus Professor Phil Goodwin (who helped write ‘A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone’ for the last incoming Labour government in 1997) thought that “fixing things” required some time to reflect. He proposed that all planned major road schemes for England that the government has inherited should be independently reviewed against the five strategic priorities and only taken forward if the schemes help to deliver them. It is a time to reboot.

Steve Gooding (Director of the RAC Foundation, and former Director General of the Roads, Traffic and Local Transport Group at the Department for Transport) warned that proposing time for review would require careful framing as it might be seen at odds with “moving fast”. He also pointed out the reality of competing priorities faced by government and the expectations of the public and business. Scrapping major road schemes might save money that could be directed elsewhere, but also risked undermining the Government’s desire to get on with infrastructure and get the economy moving. Steve went further and pointed out that achievement of some government objectives would require more funding for roads: improved bus services require investment in roads as do Angela Rayner’s (the new Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government) plans for new homes and even new towns.

Phil responded that the government could move fast with the things in its manifesto but should review any projects that might undermine its strategic priorities. The other panellists underscored the need to bring people with them and suggested that this required being frank with the public about the challenges.

Professor Helen Bowkett (Senior Technical Director at Arcadis, experienced in transport modelling and appraisal of transport schemes) railed against three popular transport obsessions that need to be exposed. The obsession with speed, despite our knowledge that lower speeds can reduce carbon emissions and lower road speeds such as the 20-mph default urban speed in Wales can reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured. The obsession with rail, despite the huge subsidy from central government received for every trip only benefiting a limited, generally wealthier demographic. In contrast bus subsidies are the responsibility of local government but are more likely to reach people who are socially and economically deprived. Finally, the obsession with benefit cost ratios and the weight given to them, when they should be one of multiple inputs considered to inform planning and investment decisions. Helen argued that we need to move away from disjointed scheme appraisals to a system that enables us to establish what we want to do in each area. We need an approach that enables us to think before we plan. Helen highlighted that adverse environment impacts are often governed by legislation and the project has to be changed to avoid or mitigate them but there is often not a similar force behind the consideration of social impacts in transport appraisal This needs to change.

Finally, Dr Jo Barnes (Professor of Clean Air, UWE) urged caution when moving fast to implement change intended to fix things, citing the example of a National Highways proposal to replace bitumen for road surfacing with recycled plastic. While this might appear to contribute to “delivering greener transport” it would throw up a whole new problem of air pollution and the health hazard of microplastics in the atmosphere. Jo would urge that we engage more with industry, the public and other departments to improve air quality and there should be an open public debate about the transition from cars with internal combustion engines, to electric vehicles. She thinks that government should stand up to motor manufacturers that lobby for lower emissions standards and challenge the rising number of SUVs in urban areas. There needs to be more collaboration between departments (Transport, DEFRA, NetZero, OHID and Energy) to tackle air pollution.

In sum, our panel experts were broadly supportive of the five strategic priorities. However, whilst recognising the political imperative to make swift progress they would urge caution that the Secretary of State’s stated ambition to move fast should be tempered by taking steps to ensure the evidence-base is clear, in order to be confident of fixing those things that would deliver equality and social mobility, and to take people along with them through transparent communication.

Here you can find more info about the panellists’ speeches.

NET walk

During the lunch break a sizeable group of the symposium’s participants split off to explore UWE’s campus – digesting the morning’s presentations and perhaps also the generous hunks of carrot cake that accompanied the buffet. The purpose of this ‘Net Walk’, an idea of Dr Juliet Jain, was to provide an opportunity for networking outside of the spaces that are typical of conferences and symposia. Stepping out of the Engineering Building, the route visited the Bristol Robotics Lab and the new bee-friendly garden space by the farmhouse building, while avoiding the numerous holes in the ground caused by UWE’s ongoing heat decarbonisation project. During the walk, participants got a chance to meet other attendees in an informal setting, expanding their networks beyond the familiar faces one might gravitate towards on the conference floor. At designated stops there was a chance to switch walking partners and make another connection.

We had a good response to the Net Walk from participants, with several mentioning it as a highlight of the day. We will take this forward in future editions of the CTS Symposium and encourage participants to join us on the next one – although we cannot guarantee the lovely weather experienced this year.

Workshops

Workshop on Local Bus Automation

Around 20 delegates took part in a workshop responding to the question ‘Can the Automation of Local Buses Add Value to Delivering Sustainable Transport?’. Prof Graham Parkhurst began the workshop by introducing the MultiCAV project (a summary of the project featured in an earlier CTS blog). Participants then took part in a ‘carousel’ of four 15-minute guided discussions on the themes of:

the user perspective, and the challenges that unstaffed automated buses might bring, coordinated by Dr Billy Clayton

the role of the safety operative, led by Dr Jonathan Flower

stakeholder perspectives on how automation might realistically be applied, with Dr Ben Clark

the sustainability implications of automated buses drawing on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal indicators, proposed by Prof Graham Parkhurst

The coordinators then gave summary feedback. The following are highlights:

Billy’s groups felt that passengers would quickly get used to the experience of riding without a driver controlling the vehicle but thought it unlikely that operators would be content to send an unstaffed bus out into an unpredictable fully mixed urban road environment.
Ben’s groups highlighted some scepticism amongst participants that we will ever reach full automation.
Jonathan’s groups considered benefits of partial automation like programming smooth driving styles which complied with speed limits, to reduce tyre pollutants and driver fatigue.
Graham’s groups thought automated buses would be well suited to offering more flexible routes if operating costs were lower, and this would influence performance against some indicators.

In Billy’s break-out group focusing on the passenger experience of autonomous buses, participants felt that passengers would quickly get used to the experience of riding without a driver controlling the vehicle, but questioned the safety and cost benefits of autonomy in the bus context. Discussion centred on passengers’ preference for an “official” presence on board the vehicle, be this in the form of a driver or a conductor, and on the operator side, it was thought unlikely that operators would be content to send an autonomous bus out into a fully mixed urban road environment without any official human presence on board, due to the high possibility of unforeseen circumstances in which it would be necessary to have someone present on the bus to manage the situation.

Workshop on Are we serious about net-zero? Understanding current and future systems to achieve NetZero freight

About 18 people participated in the net-zero freight systems workshop and tried to address the question: “What factors influence the demand for goods in local areas while considering

net-zero targets?”. Despite the great financial benefits companies might have from increased online shopping, inefficient management of local freight flows would be expected to generate increased road congestion, poor air quality, increased road traffic collisions, increased costs for freight companies, and a general negative impact on accessibility, with direct impacts on accessibility for people as well as for goods.

Credit: Mabel Still

After a brief presentation to set the scene and explain why understanding and embedding freight into our thinking is important and drawing upon the recently published Triple Access Planning for uncertain futures handbook, Dr Daniela Paddeu invited participants to work in groups and co-design their mental models (Causal Loop Diagrams) of local freight systems. Participants were encouraged to use the Triple Access System approach, which encourages planners to consider the main factors that influence end-consumers’ choices when they buy products online, especially with respect to the way they have their products delivered, and how areas can respond to these needs while designing and planning for an efficient system.

It was interesting to see how participants considered different aspects of local freight, including economic growth of local areas, as well as air quality, public health implications of freight movements; but also social inequalities, considering winners and losers of online shopping and last-mile deliveries, looking into how neighbourhoods and local areas should be designed to improve access for goods, but also limiting or mitigating the negative externalities due to goods movements in those areas.

Workshop on What is the relation between walkability and governance?

If you were in charge of delivering walkable cities, what would you do, and what resources or tools would you need? The workshop examined walkability from a policy and governance perspective.

Credit: Jim Walker

To kick things off, Dr Tamara Bozovic provided insights gathered from case study analyses of successful walking improvements, examining contributors to implementation, encountered barriers, ways outcomes were monitored and how they aligned with strategic intents.

Some 40 participants, active in administration, advocacy, or academy, first brainstormed to define “the problem” at hand. The discussions reflected the complexity within which walkability operates. Many interlinked dimensions of “the problem” were noted, including lack of leadership, lack of value given to walking experiences, siloed decision-making processes, walking as a mode of transport overlooked, inherent practices, or issues of ownership of space.

The participants brainstormed recommendations for decision-making. The discussions at the group tables and across the room were extremely rich and insightful. Participants took a systems approach, examining leadership and governance, walking experiences, redesign of urban environments to support walking, or ways to normalise walking as a mode of transport.

Closing

Ben Clark (MSc Transport Engineering and Planning Programme Leader) presented a UWE prize of £300 for the best dissertation submitted by Tom Eadie, a student on the programme in the previous academic year (2022-23).

Prof Graham Parkhurst closed the conference by observing that a theme that had been important to him across the day was the need for professionals in the transport sector to lead the decarbonisation mission but, in a time characterised by polarised politics, remembering the importance of consensus-building and UN’s principle of ‘leaving no one behind’. He thanked the organising team and the delegates for their engagement.

Delegates were then asked to complete an online feedback survey. Later analysis showed that 85% gave an overall rating of 80/100 or higher, particularly enjoying the keynote speakers and the panel discussion.

Some quotes from our participants:

I have thoroughly enjoyed the whole day. The inclusion of students, the focus on sustainability (while thoughtfully following it up with a request to bring water bottles and having plant-based food) and the content have all be superb. The NET walk was valuable and such a lovely addition. I’m looking forward to attending again. Thank you!

Loved the panel discussions, the presentations were a good mix of technical and fun!

Smoothly ran, engaging presenters and broad range of topics. Workshops went well too.

Such a great day, really interesting, great to hear about so many ideas and research, also to talk to new people, share ideas.

Enjoyed the workshop discussions and the Netwalk (networking opportunities).

Catering was fantastic and great to see it was fully plant based given the impact of animal agriculture (even more than transport!) Fantastic event. Thank you to organisers and speakers

We are very pleased that our attendees enjoyed the Symposium. We would like to thank everyone who presented and attended. Active participation, insightful presentations, and strong engagement were key in making this event a great success.

We are really looking forward to meeting you all next year at our 2025 CTS Symposium!

Invitation to our CTS symposium

Transport and Society | 13 June 20241 August 2024

Our annual symposium will be on Thursday 18 July 2024 on Frenchay Campus and will feature an exciting and thought-provoking array of talks and keynotes as well as a panel and workshops. The event is free and you can even get special train fares (see below).

We would like the symposium to be an opportunity to share and engage with transport research on the topics of governance and equity; transport planning and placemaking; technological change; travel behaviour and the mobility experience.

Programme

After the welcome and symposium opening, we will hear a keynote by Councillor Ed Plowden, new Chair of Bristol City Council’s Transport and Connectivity Committee, followed by two breakout sessions:

Travel behaviour and the mobility experience, examining active travel as daily practice and potential
Governance and technological change, considering a wide array of tools for better performing transport systems (drone deliveries, public transport automation, and more inclusive Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans).

The second part of the morning will be a plenary session presenting Triple Access Planning followed by a panel in which the panellists (to be announced next week) will imagine themselves as special advisers and brainstorm ways to brief the new Government’s Secretary of State for Transport.

The symposium will break for lunch and you will have the option to participate in a NetWalk (the spaces are limited, make sure you select the option when registering).

In the afternoon, three parallel workshops will offer to:

Learn how to use systems thinking for decarbonising freight while considering uncertainty.
Examine automated bus services from the policy and planning perspectives and provide input to help frame next steps on the research agenda. Or
Think about the decision-making processes that can deliver more walkable environments, and brainstorm policies’ and tools’ desirable evolution.

We hope to see you on 18July at Frenchay! We have partnered with GWR to offer a significant discount to delegates – for that, book your tickets using the link provided by GWR and make sure you have with you a confirmation of attendance, which can be requested by train controllers. This can be your registration confirmation or an invitation we’ll be happy to provide. Please email us if you have any doubt or require assistance.

Follow the links to download the programme and register to this free event.

Is Triple Access Planning now on its way?

Transport and Society | 9 May 2024

By Glenn Lyons, Mott MacDonald Professor of Future Mobility

Three years ago UWE’s Centre for Transport and Society was at the very beginning of leading a 16-partner pan-European consortium in a three-year project to explore and develop the concept of Triple Access Planning. Now the project has come to a close and our Handbook for Practitioners is published and freely available. The high level summary of the Handbook is as follows.

Planning for the future continues to evolve in the face of a changing world. What we did in the past will not work for the future. Even the recent shift, with greater interest in transport planning being vision-led and focused on people rather than traffic, it is still not enough.

This Handbook is the next evolutionary step. It supports a way of thinking and acting that is intended to mark a change from transport planning in the ‘predict and provide’ paradigm to ‘Triple Access Planning’ in the ‘decide and provide’ paradigm. This is vision-led (‘decide’) instead of forecast-led (‘predict’). It includes digital accessibility alongside spatial proximity and mobility (together making ‘triple access’). It also includes addressing uncertainty about the future.

The Handbook is a companion guide for those who are already conversant with transport planning or other planning approaches. It explains the triple access perspective on planning, the handling of uncertainty, addressing access for goods, and the organisational and institutional challenges associated with Triple Access Planning. For each of these themes, four planning phases are examined: (i) Philosophy – why take this approach?; (ii) Preparation and Analysis – assessing the current and future situations; (iii) Strategy Development – determining visions/goals and the approaches to achieving these; and (iv) Measure Planning – identifying more specifically what needs to be implemented to achieve goals. The first of these is an important (informal) orientation phase. The other phases reflect those recognised in European Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning (which also includes ‘Implementation and Monitoring’).

Whilst Triple Access Planning does not offer an easier approach than established planning practices and institutions, it is more fit for purpose in relation to the challenge and opportunities we now face. This Handbook is a staging post in the onward journey of change in how we make sense of, and seek to be prepared for and shape, the future. Please embrace it.

In keeping with the times, if you are thinking “but what IS Triple Access Planning”, you may wish to start by asking Co-pilot to explain how TAP is different from traditional transport planning:

If your curiosity has been aroused and you would like to know more but don’t feel ready to dive into the Handbook itself, there are various resources that have been recently produced to support the Handbook’s launch:

Summary versions of the Handbook are available in Dutch | English | French | Italian | Slovenian | Swedish (Spanish coming soon!)
There’s an introductory video for the Handbook (alternatively see related LinkedIn Post with video) that offers a 15-minute insight into TAP and the contents of the Handbook (a PDF of the slides in the video is also available here)
Read an essay about TAP and the new Handbook, published by The Planner, called Predict or decide? How ‘triple access planning’ can change placemaking
Read a published commentary article to accompany the Handbook launch called ‘Triple Access Planning – a diffusing innovation that reflects our new look world’ (and visit TAPAS.network to view this and other transport planning and accessibility commentaries)
Watch a March 2024 recording on YouTube of a panel discussion with practitioners about Triple Access Planning

We’ve been proud at UWE to play our part in helping bring forwards this diffusion of innovation in transport planning. It has been particularly rewarding to be involved in a project that brings together academics and practitioners and has at its heart a strong sense of purpose, notably a wish to help strengthen planning at a time when shaping the future seems so critical in the face of a climate and nature emergency.

This short blog has been written by Professor Glenn Lyons on behalf of the UWE team that has been at the heart of the TAP project: Associate Professor Daniela Paddeu; Dr Tamara Bozovic; Professor Kiron Chatterjee; Professor Graham Parkhurst; and Professor David Ludlow.

Putting the mobility into transport

Transport and Society | 29 April 2024

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 21^st 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.

Why we shouldn’t ignore the transport needs of young people

Transport and Society | 28 November 202314 June 2024

New study warns that young people cannot access work, education and social opportunities due to transport barriers. It finds 16-24-year-olds make 21% fewer trips compared to other working age adults.

Credit: John Linton/Sustrans

“There was this really good job that was paying me way more than where I’m working now… The fact is, the bus system don’t even run early in the morning… it was really emotional… I couldn’t get to that job.”

This quote is typical of how many young people are frustrated about how transport limits the opportunities available to them.

UWE and Sustrans have just published a report which reveals how young people in England and Wales use and experience the transport system and the barriers that exist for meeting their travel needs. It is the culmination of a three-year project called Transport to Thrive which aimed to make the policy case for transport that better enables young people aged 16-24 to make journeys and reach opportunities that help them to thrive. The project was funded by the Health Foundation as part of its Young people’s future health inquiry.

Our report presents new analyses of national travel data, combined with insights from in-depth interviews with young people leaving school and college.

We found young people aged 16-24 make 14% fewer trips compared to the population average and 21% fewer trips compared to working age adults of 25-64 years. The gaps in trip making have widened in the last 20 years with 16-24 year olds making 7% fewer trips per year than the population average in 2002 and the difference widening to 14% by 2019.

Trend in average annual number of trips (source: NTS data for England for 2002-19).

The situation in 2021 (where the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic was still present) is even more stark with 16-24 year olds making 29% fewer trips per year than the population average. Young people’s mobility was acutely affected by the pandemic and it remains to be seen how far it has recovered since then.

Availability and cost of transport are the two main barriers to travel for young people. Interviews revealed multiple instances where young people were unable to pursue opportunities, such as work experience or a better job, due to a lack of transport options and the cost of travel. National travel data showed 16–24-year-olds without car access are 2.1 times more likely to have a low level of trip making compared to 16–24-year-olds who are the main driver of car. It also showed young people from households with the lowest income quintile are 1.4 times more likely to have a low level of mobility (compared to highest income quintile households).

With only 40% of young people aged 16-24 having a full driving licence in comparison to 74% of adults aged 16 or over, young people are more likely to travel using a range of transport options including public transport, walking, cycling and new shared mobility option such as e-scooters. The interviews highlighted how walking and public transport provide access to valuable opportunities that shaped young people’s aspirations and built their knowledge and skills.

“The public bus is really important to me because if it didn’t exist I don’t think I’d have gone to the high school and sixth form that I went to… it pretty much set me up to getting into uni as well.”

However, young people expressed frustration in their interviews with the lack of control they had over their mobility. This is where cycling offers potential advantages over other transport options but has low take-up. Young people highlight lack of access to cycles and lack of safe cycle routes as barriers to cycling.

Credit: Kois Miah/Sustrans

What is clear is that young people contribute less to transport carbon emissions than other age groups, as well as being likely to see the most adverse effects of future climate change. Many young people state they wish to use cars less in the future because of concerns about climate change. A survey in November 2022 for the Department for Transport found 49% of 16-24 year olds agreed ‘In future, I am willing to use cars less to reduce my contribution to climate change’ compared to 42% across all age groups.

The evidence in the report is the basis for a set of policy recommendations to meet the transport needs of young people. These aim to give young people genuine transport choices to ensure transport no longer holds them back. The starting point is a call on local and national governments to better recognise the needs of young people by giving them a voice in the decisions that affect how they travel.

Other recommendations include:

Providing long term dedicated investment for walking, cycling and public transport.
Devolving powers to local transport authorities to take greater control of buses.
Providing financial support for young people to buy a cycle.

To conclude it is essential that we better meet the transport needs of young people and other disadvantaged groups. At the heart of this is improving active travel and public transport in parallel to support multi-modal, low car lifestyles. Improving transport for 16–24-year-olds will support social and economic outcomes for the next generation of leaders and for society as a whole.

The blog was written by Prof Kiron Chatterjee (Professor of Travel Behaviour at CTS) who worked on the Transport to Thrive project with Dr Sarah Collings (Senior Research Fellow in Transport and Young People at CTS) and Dr Andy Cope (Director of Evidence and Insight at Sustrans).

Kiron Chatterjee is Professor of Travel Behaviour in CTS at UWE Bristol. His research looks at how travel behaviour changes over time, whether at an individual or societal level, and the influence on this of transport systems and social, economic and technological change. In recent years, his attention has also been on how people’s access to transport affects their life opportunities and wellbeing. He led the influential evidence review for the Department for Transport, published in 2018, on reasons for the decline in car driving of young people.

Why a car is not just a car

Transport and Society | 28 April 202330 November 2023

Social aspects of mobility have been widely disregarded in social sciences, while at the same time there is a widespread fetishism around cars as machines with magical powers.

Throughout modern history, revolutions in transport have not just altered mobility or the geography of places; they have been absolutely necessary for the economic, political and historical development of whole countries. Railways, for example, due to its ability to connect remote areas rapidly, succeeded in speeding up not only the commercial and migration flows of Western countries on the 19th Century; they also speeded up the collapse of pre-capitalist social formations, fostering modern national cohesion and helping in dismantling ancient administrative boundaries. Furthermore, railways revolutionised time itself: prior to the development of railways, time varied from town to town, as this entirely depended upon each town’s solar time. In 1840, the Great Western Railway standardised the time in all the stations.

However, what standardised time were not just some series of connected carriages known as “trains”. It was rather the skyrocketing of commuting journeys and migrations within the development of new capitalist and economic relations in England what was a radically new phenomenon – and which, at the same time, was only possible thanks to railways.

Wars were also important driving forces behind railway construction. During the American Civil War, “the North” saw necessary to build a modern railway network to assure a more efficient way to supply its army. They also enabled a sort of modern mobility in wars, making logistic chains faster and dependent upon railways. Such a modern technology contributed to a widespread fear among European governments, that were worried about the rapid military mobilisation capacities of other countries.

If trains were the paradigmatic means of transport in the 19th Century, the 20th Century would be the witness of another important revolution in transport: the private car. John Urry described the car as the quintessential commodity of the 20th Century.

Shortly, the secret of the success of the private car in the post-war era lied in the fact that these were massively produced by workers who received a relatively high wage and that had more stable working conditions than nowadays.

Massively produced cars were sold because workers had a high enough purchasing power. This was coherently accompanied by a massive investment in the construction of suburbs – which are connected to cities by means of the car – and highways. In conclusion, this system known as Fordism fulfilled certain requirements for a stable functioning of capitalism: it assured that produced commodities could be afterwards sold in the market – thus avoiding overproduction crises – and pushed forward the development of important industries such as oil refining, roadbuilding, retail parks… achieving high rates of employment and economic growth.

Though so-called Fordism collapsed as a consequence of 1973 oil crisis, automobility has remained dominant, and cars – and carmakers – still play a fundamental role in mobility, economy and society. The economic growth in the post-war era was not just an era of economic growth. It entailed massive changes in the built landscape, in geographies, in mobility and in economic relations that have remained deeply rooted in the everyday life of modern countries.

That is why phasing-out cars is such a difficult task, especially in countries with a high suburban population like the US.

The difference between railways and private cars’ historical role lies in its relation to the economic and social agenda of their time; whereas railways contributed to the dismantling of the Ancient Regime and to the emergence of new capitalist relations, private cars arise in a time of a global crisis of capitalism itself – heralded by two World Wars and by the Crash of 29 – to provide a solution to the problems that accumulation had encountered in the previous decades.

The power of private cars in reshaping economy, geography and society seems magical. There is indeed a wide fetishism around the car manifested at different levels: by those users who think freedom consists in having the chance to drive a car and by those policymakers and scholars who do not envisage a world without cars. Even a critical sociologist like Urry defined automobility as autopoietic. This means that automobility would be capable of producing itself – and only itself – its own surrounding world. Far from being autopoietic, what automobility actually entails is a circular, tautological coherence, insofar as it allowed the emergence of a deeply fixed geography (expressed through a massive suburban sprawl, an endless system of highways and roads…) and economic relations in which, in a very simplified way, people just work to save money, save money to purchase a car, and purchase a car to go to work.

Last October, CTS colleagues Graham Parkhurst and William Clayton edited “Electrifying Mobility: Realising a Sustainable Future for the Car”, a book that addresses some of the multiple problems that an electric transition in a complex industry like this entails. Graham Parkhurst and Xabier Gangoiti are currently working on a paper aimed at discussing the barriers that a business-as-usual transition to electric cars faces in Europe. These problems range from the dependence to electric batteries manufactured in China to the possible unemployment issues caused by such electric transition – and the subsequent difficulties in making the electric vehicle an affordable, massively consumed commodity.

This blog was written by Xabier Gangoiti, Research Trainee at the Centre for Transport and Society, University of the West of England, Bristol.

Tag: CTS