Shifting gears: How do we shift people from private cars to walking and cycling?
Cities across Australia are becoming increasingly car-dependent, leading to far-reaching negative impacts for our health, the environment, and the economy.
Every year, motor vehicle crashes worldwide claim 1.3 million lives and injure 102 million people. Car-dependence impacts our physical and mental health through air pollution, sedentary lifestyles, and social isolation.
In Australia, motorised transport is responsible for 21% of national emissions and on track to become the largest source by 2030.
And this just scratches the surface – car-dependence worsens urban sprawl, environmental degradation, noise pollution, and transport poverty.
These challenges will intensify as Australia’s population grows – currently, 80% of Australians live in our 20 largest cities, a proportion expected to increase.
Read more: Repositioning the perception of public transport and active mobility to counter car dependency
Recognising the rapid urbanisation projected for the future and the consequences of a longstanding reliance on motorised transport, policymakers are increasingly focused on enabling more people to choose active and sustainable modes of transport, such as walking and biking.
The challenge is how to create large-scale uptake of active transport. There’s a huge range of interventions that can be introduced to support more people to walk and ride, including, but not limited to:
-
infrastructure changes (for example, protected bike lanes, low traffic neighbourhoods)
-
policy changes (30kmh speeds)
-
Financial incentives (e-bike purchase subsidies)
-
rewards schemes (such as Steptember and Biketober)
-
resource provision (Lime bike-share scheme)
-
campaigns (More Than a Cyclist campaign)
-
disincentives (road-user charging)
-
community events (National Ride2School Day)
-
educational programs (bike repair workshops, Wheel Sisters).
Our paper, recently published in Transport Reviews, brought together global evidence of the effectiveness of a range of interventions to encourage modal shift to walking and bike riding.
Through a systematic review with meta-analysis of 106 high-quality studies (such as randomised and non-randomised studies that have a control group to ensure changes caused by the intervention, not by something else) we found that supportive infrastructure, such as protected bike lanes, were highly effective for increasing uptake of cycling.
While infrastructure was critical, we also found that other programs, including educational interventions, led to significant increases in use of active modes.
Infrastructure is critical for creating an enabling environment
Our research, along with an array of international research, has demonstrated that people’s perceptions of safety, particularly in motor vehicle traffic, are the key barrier to increasing active transport uptake; our review supports this by demonstrating the importance of high-quality infrastructure.
Our review revealed that supportive active transport infrastructure, such as protected bike lanes and traffic-calming infrastructure, were most effective at helping people cycle for longer.
People with access to these types of infrastructure rode 28 minutes per week more compared to those without them – the highest across all intervention types.
Infrastructure that either separates people from motor vehicles, or makes those interactions less frequent and less stressful (such as 30kmh speeds and low-traffic-neighbourhood approaches), have the potential to drastically increase uptake of active transport.
Behavioural programs are key for encouraging a diversity of people to use active transport
While infrastructure is critical for creating the right kind of environment for people to walk, ride and roll, our study showed the potential for more holistic approaches that address the diverse barriers people face for active transport.
The decision to walk or ride is inherently complex, influenced not only by a person’s surrounding environment, but their habits, attitudes, skills and confidence.
We found robust evidence in support of well-designed and well-implemented behavioural interventions to significantly increase uptake of walking and bike riding.
In particular, educational programs that directly address the barriers people face, programs that provide e-bikes, and community events show positive effects for both walking and cycling.
Educational programs, when well-designed and implemented, increased cycling by 14 minutes per week, and walking by 39 minutes per week. In contrast, educational programs that didn’t target individual circumstances, such as general health messaging, had no impact.
The potential for walking and cycling ‘school buses’
School-based interventions made up 41% of included studies in our review, with walking or cycling “school buses” demonstrating significant effects.
Walking and cycling school buses are organised groups of children who travel to and from school together with adult supervision. They typically follow a set route, picking up children along the way, similar to a traditional motorised bus. They’ve exploded in popularity globally, including Bicibús in Barcelona, the Portland Bike Train, and the Bagot Community Walking School Bus.
These kinds of interventions are not only fun, but transformative – our study demonstrated a 42% increase in cycling to school, and 38% increase in overall use of active transport.
They tackle parental concerns about safety on roads, and they enable kids to get outside, be active, connect, and reclaim a space that so often excludes them – our streets.
Efforts to fund and structure these kinds of interventions have the potential to dramatically impact the mental and physical wellbeing of Australian children, as well as relieve traffic congestion and reduce pressure on working parents.
Our review relies on other studies – and they aren’t always perfect
Within our review, we only included studies with specific design features that limited the potential for bias. While this resulted in high-quality findings, it did exclude some intervention types that could not easily be trialled and evaluated using study designs not easily replicable in real-world scenarios.
In particular, we were unable to include studies that implemented large-scale and complex interventions that are not necessarily conducive to controlled study designs.
An example of one of these kinds of interventions is in Paris, where following the implementation of more than 1000km of bike lanes, new low-traffic zones, speed change and new bike-share schemes, they observed drastic increases in active transport. Cycling participation more than tripled, now comprising 11.2% of all trips.
Read more: The 30kmh revolution: Rethinking speed for safer, happier streets
We were also unable to account for the impacts of individual interventions when they were implemented in combination, despite the likely importance of this approach.
Given the complex nature of active travel behaviour, it’s likely that combinations of interventions that tackle the built environment (for example, supportive infrastructure), habit disruption (such as congestion charging), and knowledge, skills and confidence (educational programs) are needed in combination to see drastic uptake of active modes.
We need to overhaul how we evaluate active transport interventions
Our review highlights the need for a fundamental shift in how we evaluate active transport interventions.
Many studies failed to assess whether interventions led to a reduction in car trips – an essential measure of their true impact. Instead, they often relied on imprecise indicators such as frequency of active transport use or distance travelled, rather than accurately tracking modal shift.
Additionally, long-term effects were rarely examined, despite evidence that travel behaviour changes can take up to two years.
Evaluating these interventions, from small, community-based programs to large-scale, city-wide changes, presents significant challenges.
While gold-standard methods such as randomised controlled trials aren’t always feasible or appropriate for real-world transport projects, evaluation methods (including combinations of experimental, quasi-experimental and natural experiments) must remain adaptable, aligning with the scale and type of intervention.
Despite challenges, rigorous evaluation of active transport interventions is essential – not only to demonstrate the benefits, but to drive further investment in these initiatives. Strengthening our approach to evaluation will be key to making active transport a more viable and widely adopted choice.
Read more: Ride on time: Go big, be bold – it’s time to make biking better
Now more than ever, enabling more people to walk, cycle, and roll for their everyday trips is essential.
Our study highlights that while supportive infrastructure is crucial, a holistic approach is needed to address complex barriers to active travel. A combination of educational programs, financial incentives, school-based initiatives, and car-use disincentives is necessary to make these affordable and healthy transport options accessible to a broader and more diverse population.
Further, to strengthen the evidence base and drive further investment in active transport, we need more robust evaluations that consider a wide range of potential impacts. With the right mix of infrastructure and behavioural interventions, cities across Australia can be transformed into active, sustainable, and thriving communities.
