Acceptability of a city-wide transport plan: A thematic analysis of written consultation responses

Policy intervention to reduce car use is required for environmental and health benefits. Multi-component interventions with both positive (i.e. ‘carrot’) and negative (i.e. ‘stick’) strategies are effective in promoting modal shift, but ‘stick’ strategies are less acceptable and often abandoned before implementation. This study aims to understand the arguments surrounding policy acceptability for a multi-component transport plan including both carrot and stick strategies in Cambridge, UK. A series of public consultations between 2017 and 2022 informed transport priorities and provided feedback on a range of proposals. The final public consultation sought views on detailed proposals to expand the bus network and invest in sustainable travel infrastructure funded by the implementation of a road user charge. Following the consultation, concessions were made to the plans and they were later abandoned due to a lack of political consensus. We downloaded and analysed written responses generated during the consultation to identify arguments influencing policy acceptance. From 115 included responses, we identified five themes: (1) support for the overall vision of the transport strategy; (2) mixed support on proposals (favouring carrots but not sticks); (3) concerns about consultation process; (4) concerns about deliverability of proposals; and (5) the effects of the scheme on transport, inequalities and economic growth. Our findings suggest that policy design and communication should focus on perceived effectiveness and equity and building trust among agencies ahead of policy proposals to support the effective implementation of travel policy solutions. • Policy outcomes received mixed support, with greater opposition for restrictive proposals. • Concerns about supporting evidence and the consultation process undermined acceptability. • Previous negative experience of consultation and transportation plans influenced trust. • Perceived ineffectiveness, inequities, health and economic impacts influenced acceptability. • Perceived effectiveness and equity in policy design and communication is important.