Commuting and wellbeing in London: The roles of commute mode and local public transport connectivity.

PublishedJournal ArticleOBJECTIVES: To explore the relationships between commute mode, neighbourhood public transport connectivity and subjective wellbeing. METHOD: The study used data on 3630 commuters in London from wave two of Understanding Society (2010/11). Multivariate linear regressions were used to investigate how commute mode and neighbourhood public transport connectivity were associated with subjective wellbeing for all London commuters and for public transport commuters only. Subjective wellbeing was operationalized in terms of both a positive expression (life satisfaction measured by a global single-item question) and a more negative expression (mental distress measured by the General Health Questionnaire). Logistic regression was also used to explore the predictors of public transport over non-public transport commutes. RESULTS: After accounting for potentially-confounding area-level and individual-level socioeconomic and commute-related variables, only walking commutes (but not other modes) were associated with significantly higher life satisfaction than car use but not with lower mental distress, compared to driving. While better public transport connectivity was associated with significantly lower mental distress in general, train users with better connectivity had higher levels of mental distress. Moreover, connectivity was unrelated to likelihood of using public transport for commuting. Instead, public transport commutes were more likely amongst younger commuters who made longer distance commutes and had comparatively fewer children and cars within the household. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the heterogeneity of relationships between commute mode, public transport connectivity and subjective wellbeing and have implications for intervention strategies and policies designed to promote commuting behaviour change.This work was undertaken as part of the first author's PhD funded by a Shell Global Solutions (UK) award to CA and supervised by CA, MW and SS. CA is partially funded by UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care of the South West Peninsula PenCLAHRC. MW is partially funded by NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Environmental Change and Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), and in collaboration with the University of Exeter, University College London, and the Met Office. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Shell Global Solutions (UK), the NHS or the NIHR, the Department of Health or PHE. The authorship order reflects relative contribution

Lifestyle, efficiency and limits: modelling transport energy and emissions using a socio-technical approach

It is well-known that societal energy consumption and pollutant emissions from transport are influenced not only by technical efficiency, mode choice and the carbon/pollutant content of energy but also by lifestyle choices and socio-cultural factors. However, only a few attempts have been made to integrate all of these insights into systems models of future transport energy demand or even scenario analysis. This paper addresses this gap in research and practice by presenting the development and use of quantitative scenarios using an integrated transport-energy-environment systems model to explore four contrasting futures for Scotland that compare transport-related ‘lifestyle’ changes and socio-cultural factors against a transition pathway focussing on transport electrification and the phasing out of conventionally fuelled vehicles using a socio-technical approach. We found that radical demand and supply strategies can have important synergies and trade-offs between reducing life cycle greenhouse gas and air quality emissions. Lifestyle change alone can have a comparable and earlier effect on transport carbon and air quality emissions than a transition to EVs with no lifestyle change. Yet, the detailed modelling of four contrasting futures suggests that both strategies have limits to meeting legislated carbon budgets, which may only be achieved with a combined strategy of radical change in travel patterns, mode and vehicle choice, vehicle occupancy and on-road driving behaviour with high electrification and phasing out of conventional petrol and diesel road vehicles. The newfound urgency of ‘cleaning up our act’ since the Paris Agreement and Dieselgate scandal suggests that we cannot just wait for the ‘technology fix’