commentators. By highlighting the complexity of the issues and the existence
of alternative analyses, the intention is to generate an informed debate that
aids policy makers in formulating the most effective policies for sustaining
rural communities in the long term.
The bulk of the evidence in this paper is drawn from Car Dependence in Rural
Scotland (1998), a study which explored car use in five contrasting rural areas
of Scotland.
1.1
Background: the rural transport problem
Since the academic David Thomas first published his book entitled The Rural
Transport Problem in 1963, concerns with mobility and accessibility have
dominated debates on rural transport. However, the focus of the rural
transport 'problem' has fluctuated over the years.
Accessibility to shops, services and employment was a central concern in the
1970's for the likes of Mosely (1979) and Stanley and Farrington (1979), and
later for Shucksmith et al. (1996). This analysis was based on the premise
that the ability to have access to places or facilities was as much as right for
people in rural areas as health care, education and other welfare services.
Maximising rural accessibility emerged as an accepted planning goal for local
authorities, while a lack of accessibility was defined as the 'problem'.
Emerging in the 1970s and 1980s, concerns about mobility characterised the
'welfare approach' to rural planning. Problem groups, defined as people who
were without access to a car or adequate public transport, were said to be
suffering from mobility deprivation. Mobility problems were defined as a lack
of transport opportunities. Car ownership was regarded as an indicator of
mobility, and those people who were not afforded the mobility, flexibility and
independence offered by a vehicle (Nutley 1998) endured the rural transport
'problem'.
Mobility and accessibility problems within households have also been a focus
of research, specifically the constraints facing those without first access to a
vehicle. Nutley has indicated that even two-car households may have some
demand for public transport, while realistically 20-35% of households and 4060% of adult individuals a r e w i t h o u t a car. The problems of women in single
car households have been highlighted, while attention has also been paid to
the youngest and oldest elements of society, and the infirm, disabled and
those on low income.
Much of the early literature was based on the assumption those with cars can
satisfy their accessibility needs and are therefore not a cause for concern in
planning and policy-making. However, as part of the ongoing evolution of rural
transport analysis, more recent studies have placed emphasis on the need for
low-income households to run a car in rural areas (Shucksmith et a1.1996,
NuUey 1998, Boardman 1998). These theories contend that the car is
regarded as a necessity by many rural inhabitants because of the absence,
228
cost or inconvenience of public transport. This includes relatively poor rural
households, who buy and use cars out of necessity and often make financial
sacrifices to do so. Shucksmith has identified this trend in rural low-income
households, and has pointed out that car ownership is higher among the rural
poor than the urban poor. He also notes that the necessary ownership of a car
in rural households can actually be a cause of deprivation, rather than a sign
Of affluence, because of the large financial burden. Boardman (1998)
estimates that 12% of rural households would not have chosen to own a car if
they lived in an area with adequate public transport and facilities.
In'creasingiy, the necessity of owning cars in rural area is defined as the
'problem', particularly as both numbers of rural shops and services and levels
of public transport have diminished in recent years. In terms of shops and
services, several commentators have chronicled the vicious circle between
declining provision and an increase in rural car dependence (Shucksmith et
al. 1996, McNee 1996, and Boardman 1998). The decline of rural bus
services as car ownership has become more widespread has also been well
documented. (Banister 1980, Banister and Farrington 1979, CIoke 1995,
Cloke et a11994)
More recently, the issue of increasing car dependence in rural areas has been
brought into sharp focus by annual increases in fuel duty - the fuel duty
e s c a l a t o r - introduced in 1992 as part of the UK's environmental policy
(Farrington et al, 1997, Boardman 1998). The rural transport problem is
increasingly characterised by rural dwellers without alternatives to the car
being increasingly squeezed, and ultimately marginal!sed, by increasing fuel
costs (Farrington et al 1998). Although the fuel escalator was abolished in
1999, high fuel prices and the differential in fuel prices between urban and
rural areas remains a salient issue (EKOS 2OO0), particularly as fuel duty Can
still be raised at the Chancellor's discretion. This manifestation of the rural
transport 'problem' is discussed in more detail below.
2. THE C O N T E M P O R A R Y - R U R A L
ACCEPTED WISDOM
TRANSPORT
PROBLEM:
THE
As the cost of motoring has fallen in real terms and car ownership levels in
rural areas have increased, a review of the literature has indicated that the
emphasis of the rural transport problem has shifted from lack of widespread
access to a car to over-dependence on it in the face of increasing fuel costs.
This analysis of rural transport is one that is held by many politicians and
pressure groups, as well as those living and working in rural areas.
One of the main difficulties involved in researching rural transport in the UK is
that it is a highly charged issue in the countryside, and one that has received
considerable coverage in the media. As a result, in terms of providing
appropriate sound bites - either for reporters or academic researchers people in rural areas tend to 'know the script'. This is reflected in drivers'
attitudes towards, and justification for, their dependence on the car. Driving is
rural areas is typically portrayed as essential, public transport provision is
229
rarely portrayed favourably, and any measure which increases the cost ofmotoring elicits a furious reaction. This is particularly true of fuel price rises as
the following quote illustrates.
"Isolation should read victimisation"
(Focus group participant: Sutherland)
The main elements of this commonly held portrayal of the rural transport
problem are outlined below.
The rural transport problem: accepted wisdom
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Most rural households are dependent on the car
Alternatives to the car are poor or non-existent
Rural drivers do more driving and spend more on fuel than urban drivers
Fuel is more expensive in rural areas
Households will struggle to cope with the effects of rising fuel prices
The Rural Transport Initiative Fund (Rural Bus Grants in England in
England and Wales) will make little difference to rural mobility
Rising motoring costs will undermine the sustainability of rural
communities and lead to increased social exclusion
It could, however, be suggested that this perspective on rural transport is (i)
over-simplistic, and (ii) has become an accepted wisdom that is rarely
challenged. This paper will argue that these elements are merely commonly
held assumptions, and the validity of each can - to a greater or lesser degree be challenged, particularly if the wider issue of sustaining rural communities is
considered. It will be suggested that this over-simplistic depiction of car
dependence and the rural transport problem acts merely to mask a much
more complex set of factors.
Four of the assumptions listed above will be considered in more detail below:
car dependence, lack of alternatives to the car, the effects of increasing fuel
prices and the relationship between motoring costs and social exclusion.
3. ASSUMPTION 1: CAR DEPENDENCE
In many parts of rural Scotland, people are particularly reliant on their cars,
and this is often attributed to a high proportion of the rural population who live
beyond walking distance of shops, services, schools and employment. This is
reflected in car ownership levels and car use; 89% of households in rural
Scotland have access to a car and cars are used for 76.5% of all journeys
(Farrington et al. 1998).
It can be suggested, however, that although the majority of rural people rely
on the car, they are not dependent on it. Even in the most sparsely populated
part of the UK isolation is actually the exception. For example, the
environmental pressure group Transform Scotland have observed that 75% of
the population of the Highlands live in settlement zones of 1000 or more. The
Scottish car dependence study also found that 61% of households in the
230
sample live within a mile from a general store. Furthermore (and as was noted
, above), the contention that rural society would grind to a halt without the car is
further diminished by the fact that 40-60% of the population have no access to
a vehicle for most of the day. Therefore, it could be argued that the majority of
people in rural Scotland are not truly dependent on the car.
In reality, although much of the rural population does indeed live in relatively
large settlements, a significant minority do live less proximately to shops and
services. Almost 30% of respondents live more than a mile from a general
store, and 9% livemore than 5 miles from a store. The car dependence study
also demonstrated that isolation from services is the strongest determinant of
car ownership, with even the least affluent households in the remotest areas
being compelled to run a vehicle. Therefore, while the majority of rural people
can be said to rely on their vehicles, households in peripheral and removed
locales are more dependent on it.
The study also highlighted that even where geographical circumstances are
similar, some households are more dependent on the car than others.
Households with children in general, and small children in particular, were
particulady reliant on their vehicles, while people tended to rely on their cars
more in bad weather.
Importantly, the study also found that no one was entirely car-independent.
Although there were a significant number of householders who either didn't
own, or didn't have direct access to a car, all of those interviewed relied on
some sort of access to a vehicle for certain journeys.
4. ASSUMPTION 2: ALTERNATIVES TO THE CAR ARE POOR OR NONEXISTENT
A second assumption contends that there is no alternative to the car in rural
areas. This perspective is certainly born out by the following figures from
Northwest Sutherland, the most sparsely populated part of the UK (Figure 1 ).
FIGURE 1
PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROVISION, BUS PATRONAGE AND
PERCEIVED CAR DEPENDENCE IN SUTHERLAND AND THE ISLE OF LEWIS
Served by timetabled bus
Use the bus every day/
almost every day
Use the bus at least once a
week
"The car is an essential part
of my lifestyle; I simply
couldn't live without it
(strongly agree)
Sutherland
48.3%
Isle of Lewis
97%
0%
8.4%
0.5%
19.9%
84%
62.5%
Source: Farrington et al. 1998)
231
Less than half of the households contacted were served by a bus service,
regular bus use was negligible, and 84% viewed their car as essential. The
figures suggest that conventional public transport cannot provide an
alternative to the car in Sutherland. However, the sheer scale and lack of
population density in the area is exceptional. For the most isolated
communities in Sutherland, the preferred supermarkets in Inverness were
over a hundred miles away and there are few significant centres of
employment commutable by public transport.
A different story emerges when the figures from the Isle of Lewis in the
Western Isles are considered. A bus running either hourly or two hourly
throughout the day served almost all the households contacted. As a result,
over 8% of respondents used their service on a daily basis, while 1 in 5 used
the bus at least once a week. Consequently, the perception that the car was
essential was much less pronounced in Lewis. The figures from the island
therefore suggest that it is perfectly possibly for to provide a bus service in a
rural area that people will use.
However, Lewis, like Sutherland, is geographically exceptional. The
population of the island is congregated into a number of nucleated croffing
townships which are dispersed along a very limited number of roads, making
it easy for the local authority to tender for a comprehensive and frequent bus
service into Stornoway, the dominant employment and service centre.
In reality, most rural areas fall in between these extremes. Most rural people
are served by some form of bus service, although the competitiveness of
buses is hindered by perceived limitations of frequency, cost, flexibility, speed
and comfort. The car dependence study also confirmed that drivers also tend
to underestimate their service, often to justify their reliance on the car.
In isolated areas such as Sutheriand, subsidised taxis, dial-a-ride schemes,
Community Transport, and buses for the elderly provided by local authority
social services were more important than timetabled services in maintaining
people's mobility. However, these tended to cater for certain groups such as
the elderly and a number of households in more isolated areas simply have
no alternative to the car. These households can be termed structurally
dependent on the car.
5. ASSUMPTION 3: HOUSEHOLDS WILL STRUGGLE TO COPE WITH
THE EFFECTS OF RISING FUEL PRICES
The fuel duty escalator was the "pantomime villain" for rural communities. The
following quote illustrates the depth of anger felt in north-west Sutherland
towards the measure:
"You'd be more effective than the Duke of Sutherland in clearing the Highlands"
(Focus group participant: Sutherland)
EKOS (2000) demonstrated that, on average, unleaded petrol in the
Highlands and Islands increased by 23% in real terms between 1993-4 and
232
1998-9. Although the Chancellor abolished the annual 6% rise, the option of
future fuel duty rises remains a possibility, while increases in the world oil
price has driven up the price at the pump in the first few months of 2000 in
any case. it has become accepted wisdom that rising fuel prices will have a
devastating effect on rural communities. On-going fuel pricing, allied to a lack
of public transport is regarded as:
•
•
•
Harming the local economy
Constraining job seekers from securing employment.
Having a detrimental effect on quality of life,
It is commonly accepted that high fuel prices raise the price of rural goods and
services, making it harder for local businesses to compete with those in urban
areas. Once again, however, there is conflicting evidence. Although many
rural shops and sub post-offices are under threat, it is likely that this has more
to do with a wider cultural change involving the proliferation in supermarket
shopping than rising transport costs. Also, consultants Bums and Associates
(1996) and PiEDA (1997) have suggested that in reality transport costs as a
proportion of Sales value are no higher in the Highlands and Islands than in
central Scotland, although EKOS (2000) suggest that the rural economy in
more isolated areas is more dependent on the primary sector, which is more
sensitive to fuel prices.
As the following quotes from Galloway suggest, there is evidence that high
motoring costs constrain job seekers ability to find work:
M1
"A lot of things are actually hidden..because..it's ]ust..people , for example, I mean
they don't apply for a job because they know they couldn "t get to it without a car."
F2
"1 mean also there's the fact that in rural areas, generally, and in Dumfries and
Galloway in particular..which has the lowest rates of pay in ScoUand..em..people are
just not going to be paid enough to beable to buy a car or get to work."
(Focus group: Galloway)
In terms of diminishing quality of life, it could again be suggested that the
impact of fuel price rises in rural areas have been exaggerated. Firstly, car
dependence - even among low-income households - has been facilitated by
motoring costs which have remained constant in real terms over the last 25
years while average disposable incomes have increased by 85% (Figure 3). it
has therefore never been easier to own a car, particulady as the largest single
cost involved in motoring- the vehicle - has fallen by around 30% in real terms
since 1974 (Figure 4). Even with annual increases in fuel duty, motoring costs
in the UK have increased by only 4% in real term in ten years since 1988/89.
By comparison, fares for local bus services in the UK rose by 21%, and on rail
by a similar 19% (Scottish Executive, 2000).
233
FIGURE 3
REAL CHANGES IN THE COST OF TRANSPORT AND IN DISPOSABLE INCOME:
1974-1988
200
disposable income
180
160
140
-
-,:'-'~ : - ~ "~'" "
rail
120
100
X
o
_=
80
60
40
20
0
I I I I [ I I I I I [ I I E I I [ I I I I I I ] I
1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
Source: Office for National Statistics, D E I K
FIGURE 4
REAL MOTORING COSTS: 1974-1999
180
160
,Jax,.,and insurance
,-
140
O
i
~r
m
"o
_=
o_./-
120
"
"-niaintenance
100
80
.....
gffr c-h~j e ~ .
60
4O
2O
0
1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
Source: ONS, DETR
Secondly, it is difficult to estimate the precise impact of increases in the cost
of motoring on rural households. However, analyses of consumers' responses
to fuel price rises suggest that it would take a large and sustained increase in
costs to effect a significant long-term change in behaviour. As the following
quote suggests, many people in rural areas - particularly those who do not
commute long distances - simply do not do enough driving for increases in
their fuel expenditure to impact significantly on their quality of life.
I'd be quite happy (with increases in fuel duty) ........... it's not going to (have an
effect)...cos journeys are very short by and large.
(Focus group participant: Lewis)
As a result, the majority of households will cope with increases in the cost of
motoring. They are either affluent enough, live proximate to shops, services
234
and employment, or simply do not travel very much by car. Furthermore, it
can be argued that households who are less able to respond to price rises
due to isolation, greater travel needs, or lower disposable income may react
to significant fuel price rises in ways which can be thought of as in step with
wider environmental objectives. They may eventually cut down on nonessential car journeys, purchase a more fuel-efficient car, dispense with an
unnecessary vehicle, or use public transport more regularly.
However, the reactions of a significant minority of households are a cause for
concern. In rural Scotland, 68% of households earning less than £10K own a
car. Of this income group 17% spend more than £20 a week on fuel- a
considerable amount for a low-income household. Similarly, 92%of
households earning £10-15K also own at least one vehicle, and 34% of this
income group are already spending more than £20 a week on fuel.
•Empirical evidence suggests that less affluent households in rural areas are
more susceptible to fuel price increase than other groups (Blow and Crawford
1997). A 10% increase in the price of fuel is estimated to decrease milages of
poor urban household by 5.4% but affluent rural households by only 2.8%.
Therefore it can be argued that households in the most isolated areas, who
are structurally dependenton the car (as opposed to merely reliant on it), who
have a high annual mileage, and who may be among middle to low income
groups could struggle to absorb the additional cost in the short to medium
term, and face a reduced quality of life in the long term. This would involve
enduring greater financial hardship, or disposing of a necessary vehicle with
associated concerns for mobility, employment, housing and overall quality of
life.
6. ASSUMPTION 4: RISING MOTORING COSTS WILL UNDERMINE THE
SUSTAINABILITY OF RURAL COMMUNITIES AND LEAD TO INCREASED
SOCIAL EXCLUSION
It is assumed that the long term impact of rising fuel prices will be to increase
the cost of motoring, undermining the sustainability of rural communities and
acting to socially exclude an increasing number of people. This perspective is
illustrated by the following extracts taken from a focus group held in
Sutherland.
M1
"WelL.to people in urban areas a car is a luxury..and the government can do what
they like with luxuries, but a car's not a luxury here. I can think of somebody leaving
Durness to go and visit somebody in a nursing home with a round trip of two hundred
and twenty miles...two hundred and thirty miles I believe..ah..this is going to be the
straw for rural areas that will break the camel's back. It's as simple as that_it will
decimate rural areas."
(Focus group: Sutherland)
M2
"The old way of life that we see at the moment would disappear..it's as simple as
thaL"
(Focus group: Sutherland)
235
However, as the cost of buying a vehicle continues to fall in real terms, rising
fuel prices have only had a modest impact on household expenditure.
Opposing accepted wisdom, it could be suggest that rural communities are
unlikely to be threatened unduly by rising motoring costs. In fact if wider rural
sustainability is considered, lower motoring costs are perhaps a more
legitimate cause for concern. Falling fuel prices allied to an ongoing decline in
the cost of purchasing a vehicle would encourage even more reliance on the
car, while increased mobility among car users would further undermine the
range of shops, services and amenities available locally. Specifically:
•
•
•
The ongoing decline in rural shops and services would be accelerated
Commuting distances would also increase leading to a rise in house prices
in areas where good quality housing was previously affordable for many
Those without access to a Car would be increasingly socially excluded.
This issue highlights a fundamental difference between mobility and
accessibility. It can be suggested that lower fuel prices will lead to greater
mobility and greater social participation for the majority, but acts to
marginalise local shops and services, which diminishes accessibility for a
minority. Rural shops, for example, simply cannot compete with supermarkets
in terms of price and variety, and people living in rural areas want to exercise
their consumer choice like everyone else.
7. RE-CONCEPTUALISING THE RURAL TRANSPORT PROBLEM
In recent years it has been suggested that having large numbers of lowincome car owning households is a concern, particularly with fuel prices at an
all time high. However, this notion is also questionable. While high fuel prices
may affect households at the economic margin, the real cost of motoring has
fallen consistently compared with increases in disposable income. Social
exclusion is currently a key political concern in the UK and there is little doubt
that having access to a vehicle allows many households the opportunity to
participate more fully in society, particularly in accessing employment.
However, it would be wrong to suggest that issues of mobility and accessibility
are no longer an issue, particularly for those on low income.
In taking into account some of the complexities discussed above, the rural
transport problem can be re-conceptualised by the following paradox.
• Rising fuel prices threaten to reduce the mobility of low income cardependent households in remote areas, undermining for their long term
quality of life and social participation.
• The increasing mobility (either by car or public transport) of those who
need or want to travel undermines accessibility and social inclusion for
those who do not.
As a result, transport policy makers ought to be taking a wider view of
transport, mobility and rural sustainability. Rather than being too concerned
236
with policy outputs such a s increasing rural bus patronage, lowering fuel
prices or maximising car ownership levels, commentators such as Boardman
(1998) suggests that transport policy should be integrated with other areas of
policy to ensure that resources are effectively targeted to ensure maximum
accessibility to employment, shops and services. By providing alternatives to
the journey as well as alternatives to the car, the policy outcome would be
rural communities which are more sustainable in the long term
7.1
Rural transport policy
i
It could be suggested that policies to support rural transport could fall into two
categories, those supporting rural mobility and those subsidising accessibility.
(i) Policies to support rural mobility
•
•
Rural fuelprices. A narrowing of the price differential between urban and
rural filling stations would be desirable. However, any legislation would
need to comply with EEC competition law.
Financial Support for low-income households. Community charge rebates
could be paid to low-income households in isolated areas. Alternatively,
means tested benefits and pensions could be increased or travel cards
provided. There would be significant administrative difficulties in any such
scheme.
• Continued financial support for public and Community transport.
• ~ Rural car clubs'.
(ii) Policies to support rural accessibility
• Financial support for rural shops, banks and services.
• Grants to encourage IT based innovation, e.g. 'telemedicine' and 'virtual
shopping'
• Financia/supportfordecentralisationofservicesandsubsidyofmobile
shop
• Continued grant aid for rural petrol stations.
8. CONCLUSION
This paper has argued that the common representation of the rural transport
problem - emphasising the impact of increasing fuel prices on communities
dependent on the car - hides a much more complex set of circumstances.
Although vociferous campaigners continue to highlight the unfairness of high
fuel duty and urban-rural price differentials, most rural motorists do not drive
enough for their quality of life to suffer, and the real impact appears to have
been exaggerated.
Whereas a number of pdce increases at the forecourt over the last few years
represent a tangible additional cost, the fall in the real cost of motoring in
relation to disposable income is a long-term and largely imperceptible trend
which has facilitated increasing car dependence in rural areas. Exercising
their consumer choice, ever-more mobile rural dwellers are increasingly likely
237
to travel to use one of a growing number of supermarkets. Such a cultural
change has endangered local stores, sub post offices, and filling stations in
rural areas, while banks, GP practices, and primary schools have also
declined in number.
In more isolated areas where public transport is unsustainable, it is
increasingly the case for those without a car to rely on a lift from a friend,
neighbour or relative for basic household maintenance trips. If high fuel prices
are having an adverse impact, it is likely to be most keenly felt in these remote
communities where households are structurally dependent on the car, where
car ownership - particularly among low income groups - is at its highest,
where the car is used for a higher proportion of journeys and where journey
distances are often greater than in more densely populated areas. These are
also the communities where fuel prices are highest.
The policy response we adopt depends on the sort of society do we want to
live in. If lower motoring costs are the desired end result, the long term result
would be a highly mobile rural society who have little choice but to drive
considerable distances to access the most basic good or service. However, if
the desired outcome is sustainable communities with an emphasis on local
access to competitive shopping, services and employment, a more integrated
approach to rural policy is required, one which placed an emphasis on
supporting alternatives to the journey as well alternatives the car.
238
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blow, L. and Crawford, I. (1997) The distributional effects of taxes On private
motoring, Institute for Fiscal Studies. Commentary 65, London
Boardman, B. (1998) Rural transport poficy and equity, Council for the
Protection of Rural England, London
Burns and Associates (1996) The transport costs of businesses in the
Highlands and Islands
Cloke, P. (ed.) (1995) Rural Accessibility and Mobility, Institute of British
Geographers, Rural Geography Study Group, Lampeter
Cloke, P., Milbourne, P. and Thomas, C. (1994) Lifestyles in Rural England,
Rural Development Commission, Salisbury
EKOS Limited (2000) Economic impacts of road fuel prices in the Highlands
and Islands, Report prepared for Highlands and Islands Enterprise and The
Highland Council
Farrington, J., Gray, D., and Martin S. (1997) Rural car dependence and the
rising cost of car use, Town and Country Planning, Vol. 66 (7/8) 214-216
Farrington, J, Gray, D., Martin, S. and Roberts, D. (1998) Car dependence in
rural Scotland, The Scottish Office, Edinburgh
J
MacKay Consultants (1997) Rural Scotland Price Survey, Inverness
Moseley M. (1979) Accessibility: the rural challenge, Methuen, London
Nutley, S. (1998) Rural areas: the accessibility problem, Modern Transport
Geography2 nd edn pp 185-215 Hoyle, B. and Knowles, R. (eds.), John Wiley
and Sons, Chichester
PIEDA (1997) Transport costs and the economy of the Highlands and Islands
Scottish Executive (2000) Bus and Coach Statistics: 1998-99 Statistical
Bulletin Trn/2000/1 [ W ~
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc15/bacs00.asp (May 2000)
Shucksmith, M, Chapman, P, Clark G. (1996) Rural Scotland Today - the best
of both worlds? Aldershot, Avebury.
Stanley and Farrington (1981) The need for rural public transport: a
constraints based study. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale
Geografie 72, 62-80.
St0rnoway Gazette (1998) 10th March 1998, Stornoway
Thomas, D. (1963) The rural transport problem, Routeledge, London.
239
240