Search
Generic filters

Improve air quality and reductions in carbon emissions through utilising parking to support development of sustainable travel as an attractive choice for residents, visitors and businesses

Summary

  • Larger proportions of respondents aged 35-54 and living outside of PO1-PO6 disagree with objective 3 (11%-12%) which is to improve air quality and reductions in carbon emissions through utilising parking to support development of sustainable travel as an attractive choice for residents, visitors and businesses
  • A fifth of respondents disagreeing with objective 3 feel that it is anti-motorist and restrictive
  • 18% think it will lead to more expensive parking and / or driving charges
  • 12-14% disagree because air quality is not a priority for them, they don’t think cars are the main cause of poor air quality, and they feel that public transport needs to be much improved and advertised better to reach new user groups

Who disagrees with objective 3?

Base: (top to bottom) | Total sample: 2,086 | Age: 108, 152, 216, 286, 247, 91 | Sex: 563, 507 | Postcode: 114, 266, 131, 311, 159, 124, 58 | Disability: 230, 817

This chart shows the proportion of respondents who disagree with objective 3 (Improve air quality and reductions in carbon emissions through utilising parking to support development of sustainable travel as an attractive choice for residents, visitors and businesses):
6% of the total sample.
1% of those aged under 34,
12% of those aged 35-44,
11% of those aged 45-54,
5% of those aged 55-64,
3% of those aged 65-74, and
2% of those aged 75 and over.
8% of males and
3% of females.
7% of those in PO1,
6% of those in PO2,
8% of those in PO3,
8% of those in PO4,
5% of those in PO5,
6% of those in PO6 and
12% of those living external to PO1-PO6.
7% of those with a disability and
6% of those without a disability.

Why do you disagree with draft objective 3?

Base: Respondents who disagree with objective 3 (131)
wdt_ID Key themes Percentage (%)
1 Anti-motorist / restrictive 21
2 Will mean more expensive parking or increased driving charges 18
3 Air quality not an issue / priority 14
4 Don't agree that cars are the main problem e.g. the port and the incinerator are more damaging to air quality 13
5 Public transport needs to be improved / promoted more 12
6 Sustainable travel not always an option e.g. not enough safe cycle lanes, not safe to walk in the dark, need to be smartly dressed at work 8
7 Improve traffic flow through fewer traffic lights and better road layouts to improve air quality 8
8 Won't solve lack of nearby resident parking 7
9 Generally negative about the council 5
10 City centre will deteriorate further / anti-business 5
11 Vague / ambiguous / leading 3
12 E-scooters and e-bikes are already a problem 2
13 Other e.g. pedestrianise whole city, sewage in the sea is bigger problem, planting trees is the solution, tackle anti-social behaviour and dog fouling, not prioritising residents, stop trying to create a 15-minute city, no more students/ HMOs, vague, introduce proper low emissions zone 9
14 No relevant comment / no comment 23