Action 1
Summary
- 79% of respondents agree with action 1 – to continue to deliver transport, environmental, energy services and planning programmes which contribute to cleaner air
- Those who agree with action 1 mostly feel this way as they consider it to be a good idea or ‘common sense’ (24%)
- Almost a quarter of those who disagree with this action feel that it will be a waste of money or that the money should be spent on other priorities. 18% of those who disagree criticise transport policy such as it having too much of a focus on e-bikes/scooters, not doing enough to reduce overall car numbers or public transport not being good enough
- Amongst those with a neutral opinion, around a fifth feel that they don’t know enough to give a firm opinion whilst 18% feel that the action is too vague or unachievable
How much do you agree or disagree with action 1?
Base: Total sample (541)
This chart shows:
45% of respondents strongly agree with action 1
32% of respondents agree
15% of respondents neither agree nor disagree
5% of respondents disagree
4% of respondents strongly disagree
Please tell us why you agree with action 1?
Base: All those who agree with action 1 (412)
| wdt_ID | Key themes | % |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Positive/good idea/commonsense | 24 |
| 3 | Portsmouth doing its bit for the environment and global warming | 12 |
| 12 | Better health outcomes/healthier city | 8 |
| 13 | Doesn't go far enough/needs to be done more quickly | 8 |
| 14 | Roads/traffic comments e.g. CAZ not effective, need to reduce car usage and ownership, more EV charging infrastructure, discourage older vehicles being used, prevent non-Portsmouth registered cars entering the city, joined up cycling lanes | 7 |
| 15 | Very important | 6 |
| 16 | Transport is a good area to make gains | 5 |
| 17 | Ferries/port comments e.g. shore power good if overdue, still too many polluting ships, more EV vehicles shore-side needed, move Wightlink to the port | 4 |
| 18 | Bus/P&R comments e.g. praise for electrification, all should be electric, expand P&R, better timetables | 4 |
| 19 | Need better public transport e.g. cheaper, more extensive, accessible | 4 |
| 20 | More details needed on what the plans entail and how they will be implemented and measured | 2 |
| 21 | Agree but not if too expensive or compromises residents/motorists or economic growth | 2 |
| 22 | Wider strategy/cross-department working is good | 2 |
| 23 | Other sources of air pollution need to be tackled e.g. wood burners, vaping, burning rubbish | 1 |
| 24 | Other e.g. basic role of an LA, modern solutions normally cheaper in the long term, too few EVs, people burning rubbish, more and more HMOs add to the issues | 2 |
| 25 | Na/no comment | 32 |
Respondent quotes:
“Thoughtful plan of actions will help to achieve the results.”
“Global warming is obviously worldwide but we increase our efforts locally to support the global efforts and improve things within the City.”
“We should do everything we can to ensure that people have air that does not damage their health.”
“Its [sic] only going to improve with transformational work – tinkering at the edges will not achieve the big changes needed.”
“Not enough is being done – the CAZ is useless & Pointless as it stands – it needs to be Cat D and at a minimum cover the whole of Portsea Island.”
Please could you tell us why you disagree with action 1?
Base: All those who disagree with action 1 (50)
| wdt_ID | Key themes | % |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Waste of money/don't have the money for this/other priorities | 24 |
| 3 | Transport comments e.g. too much focus on e-bikes/scooters, need to reduce overall car numbers, bus service not good enough, discourage dirty vehicles, P&R too restricted, traffic light sequences poor, queuing traffic for Gunwharf | 18 |
| 12 | Lack of evidence that it will work/make a noticeable difference | 12 |
| 13 | No issue with poor air quality | 10 |
| 14 | Lack of urgent action to achieve net zero | 10 |
| 15 | Other e.g. Port is big polluter, damages economic growth, EV batteries not green, don't tax traffic, abusive comments about the Council | 10 |
| 16 | Na/no comment | 22 |
Please could you tell us why you neither agree nor disagree with action 1?
Base: All those who neither agree nor disagree with action 1 (79)
| wdt_ID | Key themes | % |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Don't know enough about it to decide | 22 |
| 3 | Unrealistic/vague/theoretical | 18 |
| 12 | Penalises or inconveniences motorists/residents | 9 |
| 13 | Too many vehicles/too many dirty vehicles | 6 |
| 14 | Too expensive/question where the money will come from | 6 |
| 15 | Not needed | 5 |
| 16 | Need to clean up the port | 4 |
| 17 | More decisive action needed e.g. extend CAZ to include the port, need better public transport systems | 4 |
| 18 | Won't work/no evidence it will work | 3 |
| 19 | Other e.g. more greening, stop building more houses, need to educate people on what they can do personally, should have consulted on these plans | 8 |
| 20 | Na/no comment | 32 |
