Three Things to Know
Despite Australian government policies designed to reduce car dependency, pets remain largely restricted on public transport. To understand how these restrictions impact dog owners, the authors of this study conducted a survey and reviewed pet-on-public-transport (PPT) policies worldwide.
The survey, which included over 1,200 respondents, revealed that approximately half of all dog-related trips in Australia are completed using a private car. However, nearly 75% of respondents indicated they would change their behavior if pets could travel on public transport, primarily by increasing their dog-related outings.
The global policy review showed that most cities permitting pets on public transport are located in Europe. These cities generally exhibit lower car ownership rates and view public transit as suitable for all types of trips, not just work commutes.
For Dog Welfare Practitioners
Approximately 60% of households without a car reported delaying a veterinary appointment due to a lack of transport. This presents a significant animal welfare concern, as delayed treatment can lead to worsened conditions, potentially resulting in pet surrender or even euthanasia. This issue is particularly pressing for those residing in “animal welfare deserts“, areas with limited access to veterinary care and pet resources. Dog welfare advocates should therefore champion changes to pet-on-public-transport restrictions, emulating successful efforts like those by the Montreal SPCA, to foster a more equitable urban environment for our companion animals.
The Full Picture
Societal shifts toward reducing car dependency are generally viewed positively for sustainability and health. However, this study, titled “Riding with dogs in cars: What can it teach us about transport practices and policy?”, explores the often-overlooked role of private car ownership in enabling dog-related activities in urban environments. Using Sydney, Australia, as a case study, the authors highlight the unintended personal costs for individuals — specifically dog owners — who avoid owning a car in low-density, car-centric cities.
Study Methods
This study used a mixed-methods approach, combining a survey of dog owners in Sydney, Australia, with a documentary analysis of policy. The researchers selected Sydney due to its high dog ownership rates, car-dependent urban form, and current prohibition of dogs on public transport.
The online survey explored dog-related activities, transportation methods, access to veterinary care, and attitudes toward allowing dogs on public transport (PPT). It also collected demographic and socio-economic data.
Study Results
Findings from Survey
The survey collected a total of 1,257 valid responses. The study sample skewed younger, more female, and higher income compared to the general Sydney population, with more respondents living in detached homes and owning cars, and cannot be seen as representative of all Sydney dog owners.
The survey revealed that dog owners heavily rely on private cars for pet-related activities, with roughly half of all such trips being car-dependent. By extrapolating these responses, researchers estimated that pet owners in Sydney collectively make an astonishing 2.4 million dog-related car trips weekly.
Dog owners predominantly accessed activities like visits to dog parks, beaches, training facilities, and cafes by car, especially for less frequent or more distant destinations. They also strongly relied on private vehicles for veterinary visits, with 86% of these trips being car-based. Alarmingly, approximately 60% of participants who do not own a car reported that a lack of suitable transport options delayed their access to crucial veterinary care.
Open-ended responses highlighted real-world challenges of transporting dogs without a car, such as needing to wait for a ride, hire a car, or even purchase a vehicle solely for this purpose. Support for allowing dogs on public transport (PPT) was overwhelmingly high (95%) among participants, with nearly 75% indicating it would change their behavior — most commonly by encouraging more outings with their dog. Notably, over 20% of participants stated they would consider giving up a car if they could travel with their pets on public transport. These findings underscore the impact that transport policies can have on personal behaviors, urban mobility patterns, and car dependency.
Pets on Public Transport (PPT) Policy Review
The authors also conducted a review of pet-on-public-transport (PPT) policies across 30 cities worldwide. Despite strong support for PPT among Sydney dog owners— and evidence suggesting it could encourage reduced car ownership — researchers found that Sydney, along with most cities in Australia and North America, continues to prohibit dogs on public transport.
Of the cities studied, those that permit PPT were predominantly located in Europe. These permissive policies, however, exhibit considerable variation in their restrictions. Common limitations include rules based on time of day, dog size (e.g., Paris’s “basket test” for smaller dogs), designated locations within the vehicle, and required behavior. Furthermore, some cities implement dog fares, with Zurich notably offering discounted annual travel cards for canine companions.
Two main factors may explain policy differences:
- Cultural acceptance of dogs in public – Surprisingly, countries with high dog ownership (like Australia and the U.S.) are more likely to restrict PPT. This suggests that general appreciation for dogs doesn’t necessarily translate into acceptance of dogs in public, everyday spaces like buses and trains.
- Car dependency vs. transit normalization – Countries with lower car ownership tend to allow dogs on public transport. In these cities, public transit is seen as suitable for all types of trips, not just work commutes, while in car-dominant cultures, it remains linked to serious or essential travel.
The findings suggest that prohibiting dogs from public transport reflects deeper cultural preferences for the private realm of cars and a narrow view of public transport’s purpose. In contrast, cities that embrace PPT often have broader definitions of public life, public space, and mobility, viewing transit as a part of everyday life — not just for work, but also for recreation, companionship, and care.
Conclusion
This study offers the first detailed look at how people travel with their dogs in a car-dependent city like Sydney, revealing a strong reliance on private cars for dog-related trips. While dog ownership offers widely recognized health benefits, limited access to transport can compromise owners’ ability to exercise or care for their dogs, thereby undermining those very benefits. In cities shaped by car culture, reducing car use without viable alternatives can lead to unintended negative outcomes.
The research identifies strong support for allowing dogs on public transport (PPT), with over two-thirds of surveyed dog owners saying it would change their behavior. Ultimately, the study argues that car dependency is often reinforced by overlooked practices — like pet transport — that shape everyday mobility. Recognizing and addressing these barriers can support broader efforts to normalize public transport use and reduce reliance on private cars.
Miscellaneous
Data From Study:
Owned Dogs > Offering Better Care > Designing An Equitable Environment
Year of Publication:
2017
External Link:
Jennifer L. Kent, Corinne Mulley, Riding with dogs in cars: What can it teach us about transport practices and policy?, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 106, 2017, Pages 278-287, ISSN 0965-8564, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.09.014