Following the Paris Agreement, virtually all countries worldwide have committed themselves to undertaking efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. Within the European Union (EU), the recent ‘Fit for 55’ policy package proposes ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation policies for all sectors as part of the EU's contribution to limiting global warming. Yet, it is unclear whether the proposed policies are sufficient for the EU to limit global warming to 1.5 °C and it remains an open policy problem how to translate global temperature targets into sector-specific emission budgets and further into sector-specific policies. Here, we derive GHG budgets for transport in EU27 and obtain GHG mitigation pathways for Europe consistent with 1.5 °C global warming. We do not provide a comprehensive assessment of the ‘Fit for 55’ transport package but we discuss the main policies for road transport in light of the GHG emission budgets, their level of ambition, and suggest amendments to these policies as well as improvements to the ‘Fit for 55’ package. Our results suggest that parts of the ‘Fit for 55’ for transport are still not ambitious enough to align with a 1.5 °C scenario.

To address the sustainability challenges related to travel behavior, technological innovations will not be enough. Behavioral changes are also called for. The aim of the present study is to examine the influence of sociodemography, geography, and personality on car driving and use of public transportation. Sociodemographic factors have been defined by age, gender, income, and education. Geographic factors have been studied through residential area (e.g., rural and urban areas). Personality has been studied through the Five-Factor-Model of personality—degree of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. The analysis is based on a survey with 1812 respondents, representative for the Swedish population. Regarding sociodemographic factors, car driving is explained by being male, higher age, higher income, while use of public transportation is explained by lower age and higher education. The user profile of a car driver is the opposite to that of a public transport passenger when it comes to geographic factors; urban residential area explains public transportation while rural area explains car driving. Some personality factors are also opposites; a low degree of Openness and a high degree of Extraversion explain car driving, while a high degree of Openness and a low degree of Extraversion explain use of public transportation. Moreover, car driving is explained by a low degree of Neuroticism, while use of public transportation is explained by a low degree of Conscientiousness and a high degree of Agreeableness. Since sociodemography, geography, and personality influence how people process information and evaluate market propositions (e.g., products and services), the findings presented here are useful for policymakers and transportations planners who would like to change behavior from car driving to public transportation use. Caution should be taken in interpreting the relationship between personality traits and transportation modes, since the personality traits are measured by a short scale (i.e., Big Five Inventory (BFI)-10), with limitations in the factor structure for a representative sample of the Swedish population.

Car sharing is seen as an alternative to car ownership; however, for many households, this option may be unthinkable. In this study, we explore the idea of combining car sharing and vehicle ownership in order to change car purchase behavior to improve the environmental performance of the fleet. We consider the personal vehicle as a bundle of attributes. We look at the distinction between “daily use” and “infrequent use” attributes. “Infrequent use” features are those that are only needed occasionally, e.g., a larger trunk, all-wheel drive, seating for 7, and long vehicle range. If the vehicle attributes could be unbundled, the personal vehicle would include only those features needed on a daily basis, with car sharing providing the “infrequent use” features. We qualitatively explore what the car-sharing service would need to look like to cover the “infrequent use” needs and analyze if the existing services can provide these needs. We base our analysis on literature and interviews with experts and representatives from car sharing and rental car companies in California and Sweden. We find that car sharing today does not cover the needs for unbundling the vehicle. There are not enough “infrequent use” vehicles available in these services. However, new business models and the growth of peer-to-peer car sharing are already begun to widen the vehicle models available.

Parking management and planning can be used to address several issues related to sustainable urban development. For example, parking availability affects both car ownership and usage, and parking planning can affect both land use and building costs. A tool used in several countries is minimum parking requirements (MPR) and lowering these could be a pathway to more sustainable mobility. However, the actual effects of lower MPR have not systematically been studied. In this paper we present the results of a review of sixteen developments with low MPR in Sweden, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and the UK. Existing research and reports have been analyzed to compare these and draw conclusions on the effect of MPR on mobility patterns and mobility services. In addition, interviews were conducted with representatives from municipalities and developers. Our results indicate that the mobility patterns of individuals in the studied projects are more sustainable than in nearby projects. However, the causality of MPR and mobility is hard to establish due to the risk of self-selection and that all of the studied projects have good prerequisites for sustainable mobility practices. Many of the studied evaluations are also of poor quality with, for example, lack of appropriate control group.

We examine the influence of personality on car driving, usage of public transport and cycling. Personality is measured through the Big Five personality traits (i.e., Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism) and Environmental personality. Data were collected through a Web-based panel of adult citizen in the city of Gothenburg, Sweden (N = 1068). Age, gender, income, children at home and residential area were used as control variables. Car driving is influenced by low degree of Openness, high degree of Conscientiousness, and low degree of Environmental personality. Usage of public transport is influenced by low degree of Conscientiousness, high degree of Agreeableness, and high degree of Environmental personality. Cycling is foremost influenced by a high degree of Environmental personality.