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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 Beyazitshared 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.
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 21st 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 17th 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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
