|Level of evidence||
Quantity and quality of evidence supporting association between fuel price or taxation and AT is limited.|
May be effective:
No Level I or II evidence
Modelling based on hypothetical scenario analysis
|Weak evidence of effectiveness|
Disproportionate effect across low, middle and high-income households. Middle-income households most affected as a proportion of overall weekly household expenditure. High-income households least affected as proportion of overall weekly expenditure.
Evidence suggests that public transport is less accessible for persons with disabilities, the elderly, those living in areas not well-serviced by comprehensive networks and those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
|Acceptability||Would require measures to be put into place to increase acceptability (for instance, revenue reinvestment to deal with potential regressivity and to ensure comprehensive public transport accessibility).||Moderate issue|
The intervention is feasible.|
The feasibility of modal switch to public transport as a result of the intervention may be limited in rural areas or areas not currently well-serviced by comprehensive public transport networks. A recent Australian survey found that 30% of respondents did not use public transport to work or full-time study due to the fact that no service was available at all, with 5.5% of respondents reporting that services were located too far from home .
|Not a major issue|
The sustainability of effect is relatively unknown.|
Consumers may adjust behaviour to price rises over the longer term.
|Weak evidence of sustainability|
Potential for less traffic, pollution, safer environments for pedestrians and cyclists
Potential strain on public transport networks
|Significant wider positive side-effects|
|Policy considerations: The intervention demonstrates potential for cost-effectiveness, but is limited in terms of quality of evidence of effect and sustainability. Concerns around equity and acceptability would need to be addressed.|