Why are we still on the fence about EVs?

Posted on by
Reply

Pleased to be able to say that this blog has been published in Citti Magazine: Why are we still on the fence about EVs?   | CiTTi Magazine. It shows that our research into how important it is that we understand not just the practical barriers to EV adoption, like the cost or a lack of charging, but also how attitudes and norms influence intentions to switch to EVs. Once conventional car drivers are convinced of the environmental and technological benefits of EVs, then they will start thinking about where and how they can charge. It also shows how our research dovetailed with our partners’ (Oxfordshire County Council and EZ-Charge) approach to recruiting EV champions and holding events to demystify EVs and let drivers talk to their peers who had already made the switch.

Moving Beyond Modes

Posted on by
Reply

Many of the policymakers and stakeholders we have interviewed for the ITEM project expressed uncertainty, and even hesitancy about the transition to electric mobility. In Poznań, Poland; Bristol, UK; and even Oslo, Norway, the urban transport policymakers in particular were not sure that supporting the transition to electric mobility is a local priority.

Or more specifically, supporting the transition from personal internal combustion engine (ICE) to electric cars is not a priority in these medium-sized European cities. Why? An electric car is ‘still a car’ as one Poznań policymaker said. The same policymaker went on to describe the importance of investing in public transport, explicitly contrasting it to electric mobility.

In other words, many of our participants interpreted questions about the transition to electric mobility as questions about the transition to electric vehicles (EVs) or even more specifically, to personal / private EVs. Personal, private EVs do not fit urban transport policy visions of less congested, more vibrant cities, any more than ICE vehicles do, even if EVs make the city less polluted and lower greenhouse gas emissions. 

We, as researchers, often had to prompt participants to give their policy perspective on the switch to electric propulsion for other vehicle types like buses and bicycles. Their views on new(ish) vehicle types like e-scooters were ambiguous – pleased with their popularity, worried about their impact on space and place. Most didn’t even mention other EV alternatives, such as the electric mobility scooters and wheelchairs, or the pedal-free two- and three- wheelers commonly found in other parts of the world.

Partly this is because the focus of global and national discussions about the transition to electric mobility is often on EVs, as the IEA’s annual report demonstrates. However, that is not the only reason that many transport planners and practitioners default to personal EVs when asked about the transition to electric mobility.

Modes, modal hierarchies and modal shift are useful ways of explaining, learning about, and dividing responsibilities for transport policy, design and operation. Even those responsible for transport strategy across the geographical area of a municipality usually divide transport into modes. E-scooters and alternative types of EVs are not easily assigned to traditional modal categories such as active travel or public transport – no wonder our policymakers are not sure how to regulate them or whether they are a positive addition to their city’s transport system.

Meanwhile, alongside the heuristic of segmenting transport by mode sit other assumptions: Modal hierarchies describe which modes are more or less socially, economically, and environmentally valued in policy terms. Modal shift is what needs to happen so that more people travel by the more valued modes in a given hierarchy. Therefore, transport policy processes should aim to influence individual mode choice to achieve the desired modal shift. They should make more valued modes more attractive and efficient or less valued modes less attractive and efficient.

The problem is that not everyone has the same capability to choose nor the same perception of what is attractive nor the same urge for efficiency of movement. Accessibility and affordability are obvious barriers or motivations, but what about social opportunities and pressures? What about experiences of safety or enjoyment of risk? What about the added value of travelling more slowly if that time is also active or productive or contemplative?

Modal thinking limits how innovative and inclusive policy-making for the transition to electric mobility can be because it comes with so many prior assumptions, not least that personal electric cars are the only type of electric mobility being discussed. We need to move beyond modal knowledge. It is useful, perhaps fundamental to the responsibilities of transport policymakers and practitioners. But it must be complemented by new learning if we are to take advantage of all the opportunities to be innovative and inclusive that the transition to electric mobility can offer.

A partnership in learning by doing

Posted on by
Reply

Even before the public charging hubs went live across Oxfordshire, the partners involved in their installation wanted to include electric car clubs in the Park and Charge project. Car club operators would be a dedicated, regular customer for manufacturer and operator, EZ-Charge. Car clubs would offer more Oxfordshire residents access to electric driving, whilst avoiding the high purchase costs. Research, including from myself and colleagues, showed that a reduction in car ownership and use as well as electrification was required to meet emissions targets. Car clubs are compatible with a car-lite lifestyle.

Delays and other challenges to the project, partly due to the pandemic, left no budget nor resource to include electric car clubs before the project funding ended in 2022, but the key partners at Oxfordshire County Council, the University of Oxford and EZ-Charge kept the discussion alive.

They involved other parties in their partnership – Oxford City Council, the shared mobility charity CoMoUK, car club operators, Co-Wheels and Enterprise, community green groups from Eynsham and Thame, district council car park operators. They used survey and public engagement data from the Park and Charge project and Co-Wheels. They used messages and research published by CoMoUK. They built on the enthusiasm of local green groups, and the trust established with the district councils during the hub installation.

Out of this partnership working, Oxfordshire County Council negotiated a year-long trial of electric car clubs at a selection of the Park and Charge hubs and Oxford City’s Redbridge Park and Ride. The car club operators would provide the EVs at their own risk. EZ-Charge and the city / districts would dedicate particular parking spaces and charge points for their use. I applied for and won some University of Oxford internal seed funding to support the trial and develop a roadmap for evaluation and maximising outcomes. All involved would promote the new car clubs through their various outreach channels.

A live experiment is underway. These car clubs are innovative in not only being all-electric, but also in being located in towns and villages, away from the dense urban areas where most car clubs are found. Data is being collected on membership, utilisation, and bookings for the car clubs, and energy utilisation at the dedicated charge points. Mini-surveys provide some insight into user motivations and preferences. A public event in May offered publicity to the trial with a more personal touch. In-depth discussions were held with car sharing advocates from Eynsham and Thame, and with two independent car club organisers in Hook Norton and Banbury, who have developed alternative business models.

The trial is half way through the promised year, and already we have insights to share. The availability of electric cars is attractive to potential customers, who say they prefer commercially-run or community car clubs to peer-to-peer options. The most successful electric car clubs in the trial are in towns where car clubs already existed locally or nearby – Henley, at Redbridge, and Abingdon. Eynsham has also taken off surprisingly quickly, perhaps because of the community interest already in place. The trial car club is not attracting many customers in Banbury, perhaps because of the local competition, and negotiations are underway to shift the operations.

A further research-led project is scheduled for spring 2024 to answer policy questions such as: Are the frequency of bookings and number of unique users of these trial car clubs lower than in city car clubs, but the duration of rentals higher, as data on existing Co-Wheels vehicles in areas with lower population density and higher vehicle ownership suggests? Is the utilisation sufficient to support retaining the trial car clubs and perhaps expanding into other towns and villages? Will car club charge point utilisation help support EZ-Charge’s business model, and encourage other charge point operators to welcome car clubs? Do the electric car clubs make electric driving more affordable and accessible?

These questions can be answered as our partnership continues learning by doing.

All About Audience

Posted on by
Reply

I have not posted a blog for three months, but I have presented my research to five different audiences in that time. It’s been busy – and instructive.

My first audience included colleagues from various departments and disciplines across the University at an event to share research on ‘Behaviour and the Environment’. I focused first on my previous project, Park and Charge Oxfordshire, and results from a Stated Choice experiment on parking and charging preferences and the behavioural questions of EV adoption. I concluded with a short summary of my current research project, ITEM: Inclusive Transition to Electric Mobility, which partially questions the behavioural choice perspective on the transition.

My second audience were part-time students on a continuing education Masters. As the seminar was due to last 90 minutes, I started preparing those slides first, so I’d have plenty of material from which to develop my other presentations. I was still updating them the day before, adding extra slides in case I needed them to fill the time. I agreed to answer questions as I went along, and barely got through all the material I had originally included, never mind the extra.

My third audience was our research participants: policymakers and stakeholders, many of whom I’d interviewed as part of the research data collected to analyse the policy perspective. The presentation parts of the workshop had to be quick, to give plenty of time for moderate structured discussions that still felt almost too short.

My fourth audience was at a professional conference attended mainly by transport practitioners from the public and private sector. I wrote a conference paper, which I knew said all I wanted it to. That was to be circulated after the event, but on the day itself, I spoke at 5:30pm in one of five parallel sessions. The last presenter in the last session of a long day. We were all a bit tired!

My fifth and final audience was at an academic conference, where I presented at the end of the first session, 10am, on the last day. With all the previous presentations under my belt, I was no longer making last minute changes to my slides, I kept to time and received useful feedback for the comparative academic paper I am currently drafting on the policy perspective.

All these presentations took a lot of work, as there are not as many economies of scale as you might think in presenting the same work multiple times, if you are doing so for diverse audiences in a variety of formats. The process was, however, instructive and gave me new insights into both how to present my work and the work itself.

For example, the internal academic audience taught me the value of making connections between past and future work.

The teaching taught me to always build in a wide range of audience participation time if you are planning on taking questions as you go along. You never know how engaged your audience will be or which material will draw comment.

At the workshop, my presentation wasn’t as important as the distillation of some of the findings into statements and activities to facilitate discussion. The research participants gave us insights not only into our analysis of the electric mobility transition in Bristol, but also into wider issues and interactions with other places and other research.

Session assignment at a conference is not within a presenter’s control, but once the programme is announced, it is important to think not only about who you are presenting to, but also when. Nobody is likely to be full of energy and enthusiasm in the late afternoon, so I should probably have aimed for less, but more catchy content.

Finally, I found that a little bit of academic theory, if explained briefly and simply, enhanced the more practical points in my presentation. That’s academic expertise at its best, and could well have done the same for some of my presentations to non-academic audiences!

Tales of Transition

Posted on by
Reply

Our project is entitled ITEM – Inclusive Transitions to Electric Mobility. The ‘transitions’ bit is important. This is not just a study of electric mobility as it is now or has been in the past or is forecast to be in the future. It is a study of the process of changing from one system to another and the implications that process has for social justice.

We talk about systemic change, because transitions are multi-faceted. The transitions to electric mobility refer to the change from vehicles powered by fossil fuels to those powered by electricity. At face value, this suggests changes in technology and infrastructure, but socio-technical transitions in societies’ dominant means of movement also requires changes in policy, markets, culture and user practices, as well as interactions between all those aspects.

For transitions to electric mobility to decarbonise transport systems, users cannot simply replace their vehicles like for like, excepting only the propulsion system. For transitions to electric mobility to be socially inclusive, policy-makers and planners cannot treat electric mobility exactly as they have 20th century automobility, with all its consequences for equity of access, safety for all road users, and amenities in local neighbourhoods.

Transitions are also neither linear nor singular, occurring along different trajectories in different places. This is why comparison underlines our overarching objective for ITEM: to understand how to accelerate more inclusive transitions to electric mobility.
Here are a few observations on the multi-faceted, non-linear, and spatiotemporally uneven transitions we are observing in our case study cities so far:

Norway is known for being a front-runner in the sale and use of electric vehicles (EVs). EV uptake has shot up exponentially, so that it has progressed well beyond the purview of wealthy enthusiasts. However, downscaling the incentives that were designed to accelerate the transition is politically challenging, as is reducing access to central Oslo or other urban areas for private vehicles generally. Despite recognition that many city dwellers do not own cars at all, cuts in the government’s vehicle funding schemes are fiercely contested. Meanwhile, other forms of electric mobility, such as e-scooters have attracted a gradual process of increasing regulation from an almost non-existent baseline.

The UK set out its stall for the ‘transition’ to EVs when it led COP26 and declared electrification as the main route to decarbonise land transport of both goods and people. However, targets for public charging aside, grant funding and policy support from central government for urban electric mobility has often been indirect and insufficient. Cities like Bristol are left to find creative ways to meet conflicting needs for charging infrastructure or to enable EV purchase, rather than just petrol upgrades, to those affected by the Clean Air Zone. The success of the e-scooter trial is tempered by uncertainty over their longer-term legal status.

Meanwhile, Poland has one of the oldest, dirtiest private vehicle fleets in Europe, but is also one of the leading manufacturers of electric buses in Europe. And in cities like Poznan, electric trams have enabled clean, easy mobility for decades. This ‘old’ electric mobility is more socially inclusive, and the city also sees itself as a leader in electric micro-mobility, even if it is loathe to be first to experiment with Clean Air Zones. So whilst air pollution is a recognised problem, private EVs are considered a completely unaffordable solution.

These observations are also narratives of transition dynamics between places. Oslo is proud of its place in the process and wants to mentor other European cities undergoing their own transitions to electric mobility. Bristol knows it is lagging in EV uptake even compared to other cities in the UK, despite having a head start on EV charging infrastructure, and is relying on businesses to lead the way to accelerated adoption. And Poznan considers itself a laggard in EV terms, but wants to push for electric public transport systems to be more prominent in the transition story.

Such are the tales of transition we have found so far.

A plurality of policy processes and a pluralist perspective on social justice

Posted on by
Reply

Over the last five months, we have interviewed 13 policy-makers and others involved in the policy-making process in Bristol, the West of England, UK.

We have heard about the ideas, evolution and implementation of policies for not only electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, but also the e-scooter trial, e-car clubs, the Clean Air Zone and accompanying grants and incentives, and to a lesser extent the integration of electric modes into public realm and neighbourhood improvements, e-bicycles, e-freight options, and the electrification of public transport.

We have coded, analysed and summarised the interviews, identifying not only the extensive consideration given to distributional justice issues such as accessibility and affordability, but also the greater recognition of diverse needs spatially and socio-demographically. Compared to the policy documents analysed last summer, the increased prominence of recognition justice may be attributed to more participatory approaches in procedural justice terms than was apparent in the published narratives. Our interviewees could and did describe their in-depth engagement with local residents and the establishment of diverse working groups that could inform policy.

All of them, however, local and national policy-makers, shared mobility operators, civic society representatives and experts, still raised concerns about the inclusivity and fairness of electric mobility policies. They asked what policymakers could realistically do to make electric vehicles more affordable to purchase; whether the necessities of commercial viability limited their ability to provide services to certain groups in certain neighbourhoods; and whether limited local government resources and capabilities could be allocated fairly given external constraints.

However, there were clear indications that local capabilities (even if not resources) had grown over the years through learning from both other places and from local people, tapping into national and academic expertise, and gaining professional experience.

On the other hand, our interviewees who were involved in public electric vehicle charging knew little about the e-scooter trial, and those involved in administering the Clean Air Zone did not work directly with operators implementing e-car clubs or expanding other shared mobility. This siloed approach may be limiting the potential for policymakers and operators to make the transition to electric mobility more socially just. Our research suggests it is already limiting their understanding of how just (or not) the transition is in Bristol at the moment and in what ways.

By jointly considering multiple major electric mobility policies and policy processes, the ITEM project is developing a more holistic understanding of how these policies and processes involve different groups, meet diverse needs and variably affect experiences of mobility and public space in and around Bristol. In other words, the research assesses the implications of a plurality of electric mobility processes for the multiple dimensions of social justice in our pluralist perspective.

By comparing the policy approaches and the dynamics of the transition to electric mobility across our four, medium-sized, case study cities in Europe, each at different stages in that transition, the ITEM project is also investigating how real and perceived constraints to accelerating a more inclusive transition can change and be addressed over time. That, however, is a topic for another blog.

Let’s bring City Centres back to the people

Posted on by
Reply

Clean Air Zones, Low and Zero Emission Zones are the subject of headlines and political debate in the UK, but our work with colleagues in Poland show that Clean Transportation Zones, as they are called there, are no less controversial. Our research suggests that part of that controversy is due not to the potential impacts and benefits of these policy interventions, but how they are defined, measured and implemented. In particular, we advocate for a more experimental and participatory approach that doesn’t expect immediate and exacting results and allows for more gradual and transformative change. 

The Polish article, which highlights the particular challenges faced by cities with a much older vehicle fleets and the action being taken in Krakow, can be found here: Przywróćmy centra miast mieszkańcom – rp.pl.

A more general version in English is available here: Expert Comment: Let’s bring the city centres back to the people | University of Oxford

Happy Electric New Year

Posted on by
Reply

In December 2021, as we set out on our annual New Year’s trip to see friends and family, I thought my household was on its last long-distance drive in a vehicle with an internal combustion engine. We had ordered an electric vehicle (EV) in late September and it was supposed to arrive in February. So we had a home charger installed in February, but then no EV.

Three notifications of delay later, and we were facing not only ever-rising petrol prices, but having to service and refinance our family car, as the contract would expire before the new car would be delivered. So after some reassessment, negotiation, and in light of the second-hand car shortages, we managed to secure an 18-month old, ex-demo, but more expensive vehicle make and model for similar monthly payments. It had less range, but a lot nicer finish – and a few bells and whistles we probably never would have ordered!

So I cannot report on a fully electric 2022, but we have had six months of all-EV driving – and parking and charging.

How’s it gone?

Our solar panels kept us topped up for free over the summer, and we only had to charge elsewhere on a single journey to see family. We found a rapid charge point in a retail park a little over halfway there, and had all the energy we needed in the time it took us to pick up a few groceries. Slow charging from an outdoor plug at a relatives’ home was an easy option, and we discovered that another relation had a pre-installed home charger in their recently bought new-build.

A little road trip in October half term was even more satisfactory. We benefitted from VIP parking (and got a charge) at Harry Potter Studios (an attraction I recommend). We then had a couple nights in a holiday cottage in Norfolk, where the EV-owning owners let us use their charger and pay for the electricity with our bill. They were also more than happy to talk about their EV experiences – I was interested to learn they had installed a home charger at an elderly parent’s home to minimise range anxiety when on caring duties.

With Autumn rain, our neighbour’s house blocking the low winter sun and my other half’s daily commute, our EV was ever more rarely chargeable by solar, but we appreciated our smart home charger even more. We could programme our car to charge in the middle of the night and track the energy use in our home. It was useful when our smart meter was on the blink, and more recently helped us benefit from the government’s energy saving scheme.

Our travel patterns over the last six months haven’t change much. We drive for the same sorts of journeys as before, and I walk as much as ever. We’re still a one-car family that occasionally struggles with logistics. We enjoy knowing that our family car is more environmentally friendly, cheaper to run, gets us out of regular journeys to the petrol station, and makes spaceship sounds under 10mph.

On the other hand, on longer journeys in the winter, you have to worry not only about finding a charger, but also finding one that’s operational and available. And if someone else is plugged into the same rapid charger at the same time as you, your EV will charge at half speed or less, result in longer-than-planned stops with antsy children or running the battery down further and feeling range anxiety.

More charging infrastructure would help – and it has been surprising to realise which places have more or less available – but we’ve realised it’s not just about planning ahead, but also planning in a different way than for refuelling.

With an EV, plan to keep topped up, rather than waiting until you’re on a quarter charge (and that includes when charging at home!). Think about how many charge-points are available at a given location, not just where they are. Think about where you can charge when on longer journeys whilst stopped for a meal, rather than simply along a route. Supermarkets might be better bets than motorway services, and you never know whose home might have a charger you can use.

Which leads me to my final point – if EVs are to maximise their potential to drive forward a more sustainable future, EV drivers must come together to share advice, charging, and even vehicles. The more we do so, the more we will be able to wish each other a Happy Electric New Year.

Public Realm Resource

Posted on by
Reply

The thorniest topic at the UN’s COP27 on climate change this month has been finance, or the lack thereof, to lower income and more vulnerable countries. Affordability is front and centre of the debate to not only tackle climate change globally, but also to do so justly.

Similarly, affordability is a word that has been on the lips of many policy makers and stakeholders as soon as we started researching inclusivity in the transition to electric mobility in Bristol. Electric vehicles (EVs) are seen as unaffordable by and for many people. Even retrofitting or upgrading to a vehicle compliant with the Clean Air Zone (introduced today!) is considered financially out of reach for some of the most vulnerable and vehicle-dependent.

Furthermore, for cash-strapped governments, there is debate as to whether limited public monies should be spent on installing public EV charging infrastructure, rather than leaving it to the private sector? Public sector public charging might improve inclusion by enabling EV adoption by those without an off-street parking and domestic charging option, but if only wealthier households (whether they have private parking or not) can afford an EV, do they really need public charging infrastructure to be subsidised? Especially as electricity prices go up, and providing as well as using public charging becomes less affordable.

There are arguments the other way, of course, as lower income households might still drive a company car or van. They might be able to access a second-hand or shared EV.

And there are other forms of electric mobility. E-scooters and e-bikes not only can improve accessibility, but also can be considered a reasonably affordable transport option, especially for medium-length journeys where public transport is limited. Besides, many e-scooter trials have included discounts for low income groups to make sure the scheme is affordable.

But affordability and how public monies are used are not the only topic up for debate when considering whether the transition to electric mobility is progressing in an inclusive way. Digging a little deeper, another inclusion / justice issue is around the rights of different people to use the public realm in different ways and how their different ways of moving are accommodated in public spaces.

A number of the policy-makers and stakeholders we spoke to described how the allocation or reallocation of space on the public highway or footway is one of the most contentious interventions they can propose. Even in terms of people moving through space, there are the ever-recurring problems of congestion, crowding, and the use of space of different modes. Then there’s the space taken up for parking, deliveries, sign posts, bollards, traffic signals, cycle stands – so much of our public realm is used for dormant vehicles or the smooth running of the transport network, never mind for other things like retail or socialising.

The addition of electric mobility infrastructure such as EV charging and e-scooter parking places new demands on the scarce resource that is our public realm. Electric mobility also raises questions about how that resource is used – which modes are sharing which spaces, whose space is reallocated, who will face new challenges using public space, and will there be new conflicts and safety concerns? Basically, how efficient and fair is the use and allocation of the public realm once electric mobility is added into our transport systems?

Unsurprisingly, the policy makers and stakeholders we spoke to did not all have the same answers or perhaps any answers to these questions. And yet, they were asking the questions. They realised that social justice is not all about affordability or accessibility, but also the diverse needs, rights, experiences, and expectations of the public realm resource. That is an important step in not only our developing research, but also in achieving an inclusive transition to electric mobility.

Pet Peeve Pavement Parking

Posted on by
Reply

I was recently reminded of two of my biggest pet peeves / bugbears / aggravations / vexations / annoyances. Sorry, a bit too much fun with the thesaurus there.

First, petrol leaf blowers. Despite the unusually mild weather, leaves have been falling, and I was out walking with the family when we passed someone using one of these loathsome machines. The nuisance as well as the noise, air and climate pollution makes me grit my teeth, although also thankful I no longer live on a managed estate where the contracted gardeners used them about once a week this time of year.

Second, pavement parking. For my well-being and sanity, I force myself to ignore all but the most egregious examples, so ubiquitous they are. Even then, I am often walking with my children when we are forced into the road by an obstructive vehicle, so I grit my teeth and refrain from swearing. In one recent case, a delivery driver must have seen my face and actually apologised! Although he was technically unloading, not parking.

But the real reminder of how much pavement parking winds me up came not from a chance encounter, but as I was drafting a response to an academic query. I was reminded that it’s been almost two years now since the government’s consultation on banning pavement parking outside London closed. At the time, I argued in a blog that it was important to have a full, enforceable ban as the default. Traffic Regulation Orders, and all the red tape they involve, should not be required to forbid pavement parking on certain streets but to permit it in special circumstances.

Yet since all those responses, no new legislation has been passed. Not even a summary of the feedback to the consultation has been published. I have heard that it is regularly discussed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling and Walking, who know how important it is to activists (and I hope ordinary pedestrians!). Even a quick internet search suggests that some action has been regularly expected and anticipated, including by automotive groups.

However, with the government in constant disarray and a revolving door for Secretary of State for Transport, will they do something soon? And once they do something, will it be a complete ban or will more red tape be needed to stop obstructive parking? And no matter which, are our local Councils, highways officers, and civil enforcement teams ready to take action? The answers to all three of these questions are cause for concern.

Many motorists think they have a right to park outside their home, even if that means they block the public footway. Or rather, they simply take it for granted, usually without thought. When parking is removed or threatened with removal, it is often politically contentious. Policies to increase the regulation of parking would probably be up there with Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in terms of generating controversy, if it weren’t for the fact that such policies are so rarely debated and any action so often delayed.

Thus, although banning pavement parking would be an inexpensive and impactful way to improve the environment for active travellers, discourage often obstructive car use, and potentially even raise money to spend on other transport improvements, the government may continue to demur and delay.

I hope they don’t. I hope they realise that any public protests and bad press are driven (pun intended) by a vocal minority. I hope that one day I can walk around my neighbourhood and only be bothered by the occasional electric leaf blower for a couple months a year, rather than by pavement parking every day of every month.