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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
A new book edited by Graham Parkhurst and Billy Clayton tackles the critical question as to whether the rise of the electric car represents an important contribution to sustainable mobility.
The extent to which the transition from internal combustion engine cars to electric cars represents an important contribution to sustainable mobility is the central question addressed by a new book edited by CTS colleagues Graham Parkhurst and Billy Clayton . Given the socioeconomic importance of the car, and its impacts on the environment, ‘Electrifying Mobility: Realising a Sustainable Future for the Car’ takes a multidisciplinary approach, with its authors and perspectives drawn from sociology, social and environmental psychology, business studies, political studies, sociotechnical transition studies and environmental science, as well as transport planning and geography.
Across twelve chapters organised in four parts, the narrative considers how ‘electrification’ alters the inter-relationships between society, the economy and the built environment that have coevolved over the last century, including the practices of organisation and production of the automotive industry itself. Examination of the extent to which electric cars could offer a sufficiently environmentally benign ‘technical fix’ to avoid the need for behaviour change is balanced by exploration of the extent to which the electric car is changing both government policies and citizens’ attitudes, behaviours, and traveller ‘experiences’. Major technical and delivery challenges are acknowledged, notably that battery technology is improving, but remains constrained and expensive, and the need to plan and fund the delivery of a publicly-available charging network as a critical ‘dependency’ for mass uptake. However, technological opportunities are also noted, through integration with trends for higher automation and digital connectivity of vehicles, and the shared mobility that those changes may encourage.
In the final chapter, Parkhurst and Clayton conclude that the once tentative and contested transition to electric cars as now being unstoppable, but with the interrelated factors of vehicle range and total cost of ownership remaining as key moderators of its speed and nature.
Electrification is also seen as being far from the harmonious and smooth representations of its public image; instead recreating long-standing local conflicts over road space for moving and parked vehicles and new forms of global contest for access to material resources.
Also acknowledged is the long timeline of transition, and the problem presented by an established global fleet of some billion internal combustion engine vehicles. Potential enhancements to the environmental sustainability of the transition are mooted, such as a greater role for retrofit battery-electric conversions and new ways of paying for the full costs of road use, but in the final analysis, the answer to the fundamental question must lie in the wider context of mobility practices and policies, in other words, a sustainable future for the car implies not just a new way of powering it, but a different role for the car in both the economy and society.
This blog post was written by Graham Parkhurst who is Professor of Sustainable Mobility and directs the research centre
