By Graham Parkhurst, Sarah Toy, Ben Clark and Pete Dyson
In the spring of 2025, the four of us came together around an initiative to run a panel session at the European Urban Research Association’s 2025 conference. We share a concern for how the private car fits into a sustainable mobility future, and in particular, its role in urban areas, where the consequences of car use are most obvious and alternatives to the car tend to be more available.
We identify the ‘turn’ in the transport planning discourse towards sustainable mobility as being, so far, a missed opportunity in practice. New transport options, such as car sharing clubs, escooters, and electric bikes, and enhanced buses and ticketing systems have at most times and places remained marginal, while the private car dominates. The transition to the electric car created a moment in which it was sensible to question what we need and want from cars, particularly in urban areas given the implications of creating an electric vehicle recharging ecosystem in place of current refuelling infrastructures and practices. Instead, the reduced environmental impacts of the electric car have been taken by many as a signal that it is fine just to substitute the current fossil-fuel powered car fleet with new technologies. This is despite the fact that private car ownership uses space very inefficiently: individual cars are parked perhaps 95% of the time, and roads and parking mainly used by cars has been shown to occupy as much as 41% of space in some localities.
Challenging this version of the transition, our panel session questioned whether ‘things have to be like this’. It reflected on what we know about decisions to increase or reduce car ownership and how to influence behaviour. We examined the conditions under which politicians will lead ambitiously on mobility policy, and whether technology-substitution will actually be accepted in practice by the public.
Ben Clark reflected on car ownership across the life course. Car ownership is influenced by the built environment, the transport system, economic factors, attitudes and preferences and individual circumstances such as being old enough to acquire a driving licence or being healthy enough to drive. But Ben emphasised that it is best to consider car ownership levels as something that are explained as decisions made by households, rather than individuals. For example, if people leave or join a household, that is likely to trigger changes in car ownership. A couple living apart may need a car each but can agree to share a single car once living together. This example also emphasises that life events, births, deaths, becoming an adult, and changes in relationship status are key factors often associated with changing household composition. As a result, some individuals’ car ownership status will change several times across the lifecourse, dependent on a flux of influences.
As car ownership does show variability over time and space, targeted initiatives to influence ownership decisions might be particularly effective. Pete Dyson considered the role of social influence on individual choices. Alongside other household members, peers and opinion leaders are important in shifting ‘norms’. Simply the observation of others adopting different behaviours or accepting new technologies can be influential for reassurance, normalisation and social status. The policy of ‘green number plates’ are an example of a social influence measure supporting the transition to electric vehicles, by creating a distinctive colour coding aspect to the number plate on display. He shared results from a large-scale survey of over 2000 UK drivers he conducted in 2024, finding that the distinctive plates provide a way to observe the spread of the electric vehicle within the fleet and provide a reward mechanism to owners who wish to be identified for their innovative and less environmentally damaging choices. A further international study among countries with, and without, the policy is being conducted in 2025. One implication beyond EVs is that social marketing techniques can also be more ambitious in promoting public transport ridership as enabling a lower level of household car ownership. And rather than relying solely on psychological rewards, the approach could be combined with traditional economic benefits, for example in the form of mobility credits for behaviours in the direction desired by policy.
Urban local authorities would need to be central to promoting lower car ownership levels. Sarah Toy, though, concluded from analysing carbon mitigation data from 791 cities around the world and interviewing 19 city transport officers in ten countries that few cities are actively promoting lower car ownership. In fact, even the best performers (Oslo and London) had ‘no car growth’ strategies, which is a lesser objective than reducing car ownership. Without changing the level of provision for the car, reductions in car ownership are unlikely to occur, but even cities with high levels of active travel and public transport (such as Zurich) faced public opposition to those kinds of proposal. Within the UK, Nottingham is noted for success in introducing a local tax on employee parking for facilities like offices, but this was the outcome of extensive and intensive negotiations combined with clear benefits including development of the tram system. Political leadership would be a key factor in more cities adopting car ownership reduction strategies, and in turn this requires stable government and a clear vision. Until now, those taking leadership have tended to be left-of-centre administrations.
For politicians who do decide to rely on technology substitution rather than behaviour change, the transition may prove more challenging and controversial then hoped. Graham Parkhurst observed that the transition is at an early stage. Those who have acquired electric cars to date have tended to be relatively wealthy or have benefitted from tax breaks via their employment and have access to private charging facilities. Particularly at the lower-cost end of the market, real-world range is not just an anxiety, but a practical limitation requiring behavioural compromises. Those without access to attractive charging tariffs are paying much higher rates. It is unclear whether this inequality will be politically sustainable as EVs become mainstream. ‘Cross pavement solutions’ enable some people to run cables from their domestic supply to cars parked immediately outside on the public street. To the extent these solutions are successful they may sharpen the divide. Battery swap systems offer an alternative technical solution in use in China, but this will take multi-level coordination and time. An existing behavioural solution which could ease the political and practical pressures would be an expansion of attractive car hire facilities.
In short, higher quality-of-life and streetscapes in urban areas require that there are fewer cars per person. This should be possible in urban areas, given the growing range of alternatives. As cars are especially useful for some journeys, more opportunities to hire them short-term should be available. If there are fewer cars, it will be easier and cheaper to arrange sufficient electric recharging infrastructure for them. Without reducing the number, the electric vehicle transition may be undeliverable in urban areas. Academic knowledge about the times in people’s lives when it is easiest for them to reduce car ownership, and the psychological factors which can promote change, can support a transition which is behavioural as well as technological.
This blog was written by Graham Parkhurst, Sarah Toy, Ben Clark, and Pete Dyson
Graham Parkhurst is Professor of Sustainable Mobility and Director at the Centre for Transport and Society, University of the West of England, Bristol. Graham’s research examines the interactions between new technologies and sustainable transport policy. A key focus currently is the electric vehicle transition.
Sarah Toy is a practitioner-researcher based in the Department of Psychology at the University of Bath, funded by the EPSRC AAPS Research Group. Her research and consultancy work, spanning psychology, political science and engineering, aim to advance understanding of policies to reduce urban car dependency.
Ben Clark is Associate Professor of Transport Planning at the Centre for Transport and Society, University of the West of England, Bristol. Ben’s research brings together spatial planning, engineering / urban design and the behavioural sciences to understand how to plan healthy built environments that support safe and efficient mobility.
Pete Dyson is a PhD researcher at the University of Bath, based in the Department of Psychology and funded by the EPSRC AAPS Research Group. Pete investigates the role of social norms in influencing sustainable travel behaviour, focusing on what can be learned and transferred from EV adoption