Beyond politics: How Britons view transport

Britons see transport as a practical not political issue

The dominant finding from these focus groups was the extent to which Britons see transport as a practical, not political issue. Their perspectives were drawn from their own everyday experiences of transport, rather than their wider political beliefs. We spoke to Labour, Conservative, Reform, Liberal Democrat and Green voters, yet if not provided with this information beforehand, it would have been extremely difficult to identify which party our participants supported, such was the commonality in their viewpoints. Regardless of whether they were in Oxford or Wolverhampton, voted for Reform or the Greens, our participants spoke of their desire for more reliable, accessible and affordable public transport and for congestion to be reduced and safety increased on their local roads. Ordinary Britons don’t have established or congruent identities when it comes to transport issues. In our focus group conversations, participants would make the case for measures to make it easier to both cycle and drive.

Transport is also not an issue that is driving many individuals’ voting decisions. Across all five focus groups our participants were united in saying that transport issues and policies had not played a major role in deciding the party they voted for both at the General and local electionsl with other, more important issues determining who they voted for. Britons don’t see transport through the lens of politics and elections but through the lens of their everyday experiences of getting around their local areas and the challenges they are forced to overcome.

Transport matters deeply to Britons

Though it may not be an issue which determines their vote choice or one they see as political, transport matters deeply to Britons. Across our groups, our participants articulated deep frustration at the negative impacts that poor transport has on their lives. In Cornwall, participants spoke about how their ability to get to work or to spend quality time with loved ones was restricted by the limited hours that buses operated while in Wolverhampton, individuals spoke about the stress that congestion and unpredictable traffic caused them.

While our focus group participants see transport as an important issue in their lives, they don’t perceive politicians as reflecting back this priority. Across our groups, there was little awareness of the differing roles and responsibilities that local councils, devolved leaders and central government have to play in managing transport. There was also limited awareness of the differing positions of political parties on transport - none of our participants when asked could identify differences in the major parties’ positions and policies on transport and few recalled transport being discussed as an issue at the General Election - though there was greater, but still limited, awareness of parties running campaigns about transport at the local council level.

For an issue to become politically salient, it requires not only latent concern among the public but also for political parties and leaders to mobilise this concern. Though the former is present, the latter is absent when it comes to transport.

The opportunities from talking about public transport

Putting to one side the debate about whether there are votes to be won on transport issues, our focus group conversations revealed the potential for real benefits to be earned by politicians and government, at both the national and local level, from talking about transport more. First, awareness and understanding of transport policies is poor and this risks undermining public support for them. In our Nottingham focus group, there was some disgruntlement about the city’s workplace parking levy as some participants felt this was a tax on workers with no benefits. There was limited awareness that the funds raised through the levy were allocated to fund improvements to the city’s public transport infrastructure. Knowing this helped minimise opposition to the levy in our focus group, demonstrating the benefits of politicians and authorities investing the time, energy and resources required to boost public awareness of transport policies and the rationale behind more controversial decisions.

Furthermore, across our focus groups there was extensive evidence of the absence of public confidence in the ability of government and politicians to improve Britons’ lives. Existing More in Common research has consistently shown this loss of trust as a key driver of the shift of support away from the established parties. Overcoming this sentiment and restoring trust will require the government and local councils to make improvements to the public’s everyday lives in a way that can be touched, felt and seen by Britons. Given how impactful transport is on their lives, and how visible declining transport outcomes have been, whether that be reduced bus services, worse traffic or increased costs, it became clear from our focus group conversations that transport improvements can form the tangible improvements that are needed to start repairing public trust in politicians and politics.

At the end of our discussions we asked our participants about what their ideal transport network would look like in their local areas - this revealed that the types of transport improvements the public long for are in many circumstances depressingly basic. For example, in Cornwall several participants spoke of how having access to real time data on when buses are arriving at and leaving stops has markedly improved their experiences of getting around. With Britain facing challenging fiscal conditions and therefore the scope for the government to make substantial improvements on big issues like the NHS and the economy limited, transport offers an invaluable opportunity for achievable and meaningful change.

Building support for bolder action on transport

Across our five focus groups, our participants demonstrated support for policy measures to boost active travel measures that are often seen as politically controversial. This should give confidence to politicians that in many occasions, the opposition to these measures they hear isn’t entirely representative of the broader public. 

For example, across our groups, and in the accompanying quantitative research we undertook, there was widespread support for school streets and in Wolverhampton our Labour-Reform considerers were either supportive or ambivalent towards the recent pedestrianisation of the town centre there. Throughout our groups, there was also recognition that tackling congestion would necessitate turning some journeys usually made by car into active travel or public transport based journeys, rather than expanding road capacity - though our participants largely saw this through the lens of other drivers creating congestion and being the ones needing to switch modes rather than this being the case for themselves. Moreover, there was also meaningful opposition to the principle of clean air zones across all five groups and in Oxford those who were firmly in favour of school streets were critical of the city’s LTNs.

The practical lens through which people see transport can explain these divergent reactions to these more progressive transport policies. Rather than seeing themselves as pro driver or pro active and public transport as some policymakers do and assessing these policies through that lens, our participants focused on the direct impact of these policies on their day to day lives. Where they were seen to be light touch and immaterial to their lives there was support, where they were seen to make it harder or more expensive to get around with limited benefits for locals there was more passionate opposition.

When proposing more ambitious and progressive transport policies, policymakers should be cogniscent of the perceived impact on local people’s day to day lives and focus their rationale and justification of policies on how they will improve this, rather than on the grounds of broader objectives like tackling climate change, as it this which will dictate the public’s response. For example, we found that frames and policies focused on improving children’s safety when playing in and getting around their local area were particularly effective. We also found in Oxford and Wolverhampton that a desire to turn back the clock and go back to an era where it was easier for children to play on and walk around local roads was driving our participants’ support for school streets - suggesting that focusing on restoring the perceived safety and quietness that Britons used to enjoy on their streets could be a far more effective frame for traffic reduction measures than encouraging them to imagine a new and radically improved future.

Encouraging more people to use public transport

Throughout our focus groups there was extensive discussion of the relative cost and expense of using public transport with many seeing public transport as too expensive. The conversations demonstrated that sophisticated calculations about the relative costs between taking public transport and driving to a destination play an important role in individuals’ journey decisions. For example in Nottingham, Cornwall and Oxford, participants argued that the high cost of taking buses and trains meant that it was often cheaper for them to drive to a destination and pay for parking and, conscious of costs, they would therefore do this.

Nevertheless, while making public transport more affordable than driving will be a necessary condition for shifting significant numbers of journeys from car to public transport, it also became clear that it would not be a sufficient condition as there are other significant barriers preventing Britons from using public transport. In Cornwall and Oxford in particular, our participants said they would prefer to take the bus instead of driving but limited timetables and frequently delayed and cancelled bus services meant they could not rely on public transport to get them where they needed to when they needed to. In Wolverhampton and Nottingham, our participants also spoke quite passionately about a perceived lack of safety on their local tram network with incidences of anti-social and violent behaviour discouraging them from using the trams as it undermined their confidence in the safety and comfort of tram journeys. Ensuring public transport is accessible, reliable and safe will be just as important for inspiring modal change as reducing its cost.

Conclusion

Our focus group conversations demonstrated that though it is an important issue for Britons, transport is not something that many see as a political or electoral issue.The conversations, also provided further evidence that Britons are less ideological and more willing to embrace more ambitious policies to reduce car use than many politicians give them credit for, provided these policies aren’t seen to worsen their everyday lives.

Politicians and policymakers seeking to deliver meaningful change to transport system, at both the local and national level, should be confident that provided they aren’t seen to be making Britons’ everyday lives worse, they do have significant scope to implement progressive transport policies without fear of an electoral backlash.

Politicians, and particularly those in power, should also be aware when deciding on their prioritisation of policy issues and areas that transport is an area where there is the potential to deliver the tangible and meaningful improvements to Britons’ lives that will be vital for stemming the loss of public confidence in those in power that is driving the anti-incumbent feeling that has become so dominant in Britain in recent years.

Methodology

The focus groups for this project took place in two phases. Phase One took place in November 2024 and Phase Two took place in June 2025.

The first names of those quoted have been changed to ensure the anonymity of our participants.

Phase One focus groups recruitment criteria

Focus Group 1: Sheffield

• Nine participants
• Mix of Sheffield Central or Sheffield Heeley constituency residents
• All voted Labour in 2019 General election
• 4-5 voted Labour in 2024 General Election, 2-3 Voted Green in 2024 General Election, 1-2 Did not vote in 2024 General Election
• Mixture of participants with and without cars or vans in their household.
• At least three participants who are either mixed heritage, Asian British or Black British
• Mix of gender, age and SEG
• At least one participant with a disability that inhibits their mobility

Focus Group 2: Nottingham

• Nine participants
• Mix of Nottingham South and Nottingham North and Kimberley constituency residents
• 4 voted Labour in 2024 General Election and 4 voted Reform in 2024 General Election, 1 did not vote in 2024 General Election
• Either voted Labour or Conservative in 2019 General Election
• Mixture of participants with and without either vans or cars in their households
• At least three participants who are either Mixed heritage, Asian British or Black British
• Mix of gender, age and SEG
• At least one participant with a disability that inhibits their mobility

Focus group 3: Cornwall

• Nine participants
• Split evenly between North Cornwall and Truro and Falmouth Constituencies
• All voted Conservative in 2019 General Election
• 2024 General Election: If in North Cornwall (Mixture of Lib Dem and Conservative), if in Truro and Falmouth (Mixture of Labour and Conservative)
• Mixture of participants living in either towns or rural areas/villages
• Mixture of residents who occasionally/regularly use local bus services and residents who only rarely/never use local bus services.
• Mix of gender, age and SEG
• At least one participant with a disability that inhibits their mobility

Phase Two focus groups recruitment criteria

Focus Group 4: Wolverhampton

• Nine participants
• Mixture of residents from either Wolverhampton North East, Wolverhampton South East or Wolverhampton West constituencies.
• All voted Labour in 2024 General Election
• All would consider voting Reform at the next General Election [through a self-reported likelihood of voting Reform of 6+ out of 10]
• Mixture of genders
• Mixture of ages
• Mixture of SEGs [Skew C1, C2, DE]
• 1-3 participants to not own a car in household
• 1-4 participants to have not voted in 2024 West Midlands/Wolverhampton City Council Elections

Focus Group 5: Oxford

• Nine participants
• All full-time residents of Oxford City Council 
• Equal mix of residents of Oxford East constituency and residents of Oxford West and Abingdon Constituency.
• All voted Labour in 2024 General Election
• All would consider either voting for at least one of Liberal Democrat or Green at the next General Election [self-reported likelihood of voting either Lib Dem or Green at least 6+ out of 10]
• Mixture of genders
• Mixture of ages
• Mixture of SEGS [Skew ABC1]
• 1-4 participants to not own a car in household
• 1-4 participants to have not voted in 2025 Oxfordshire Council election