REDUCING RELIANCE ON THE CAR IN RURAL AREAS
Gordon Stokes
Countryside Agency, and
Oxford Brookes University
1. INTRODUCTION
A car is often described as being a necessity in rural areas. For many, a
large proportion of journeys made are dependent on a car being available,
while for most others the car is relied upon as the only practicable means of
transport. It is unlikely that this reliance and dependence can be reduced to
the extent that car ownership will reduce greatly in rural areas, but to accept
and cater for 100% car ownership and use is not a viable policy option either.
There will always be a large proportion of rural residents who do not have
personal access to a car, by virtue of age (young or old) or through an
inability to drive, due to physical and mental constraints. In addition, many
second and third household cars are acquired because of travel needs that
could be served by other modes.
This paper looks at the extent of car dependence and reliance in rural areas.
It presents a long term strategy based on facility and service provision, and
the provision of transport networks and services that can ensure that choice
of travel mode exists for a much larger proportion of journeys than at present.
The strategy is based on developing networks for non-motorised modes and
for public transport, supporting local services and local economies, and
ensuring that a rural voice reviews all policy interventions that might impact
on rural transport provision.
While the car is likely to remain the dominant mode of travel in rural areas
much can be done to increase the choice available to people so that they are
not reliant or dependant to the same extent that they are now.
2. CAR DEPENDENCE AND CAR RELIANCE
Car dependence and car reliance are related but different concepts as
Farrington et al (1998) have pointed out. While car dependence implies
actual dependency on use of a car due to a complete lack of alternatives, car
reliance is a state where a car is used habitually, although alternatives exist.
The alternative may be:
• of poor quality or service level so that it is not perceived as an
alternative, or
• allowing for reasonable accessibility but not to the chosen location of
the person, or
© Association for European Transport 2002
•
•
allowing a level of access that is judged as being too costly or inferior
for some other reason, or
allows for access but habitual use of the car may mean that other
alternatives are not considered.
It is therefore important to distinguish between dependence and reliance. As
defined here, dependence is difficult to overcome, while for car reliance there
will be some journeys for which relatively small scale changes or
encouragement or other changing circumstances may be all that is needed to
affect change.
3. THE EXTENT OF CAR RELIANCE AND DEPENDENCE IN RURAL
AREAS
Measuring car reliance and car dependence in rural areas is not easy.
Dependence and reliance at the individual level will vary depending upon
what is available in the local area and personal circumstances. Here some
research findings are presented that provide allusion to likely overall levels.
3.1 Car ownership levels among lower income rural residents
Figure 1 shows car ownership levels for people living in urban and rural
areas in different income groups. Household incomes are grouped into five
equal sized groups (quintiles) and the bars within each group show
proportions of people in households with 0, 1, and 2 or more cars in
settlements of different sizes.
Figure 1 – Car ownership by income and rurality
Cars in Household
100%
80%
Two +
One
None
60%
40%
20%
Source – National Travel Survey 1997-99
© Association for European Transport 2002
Third
level
>250k
>25k
>3k
Rural
Second
level
>250k
>25k
>3k
Rural
>250k
>25k
>3k
Rural
Lowest
real
income
>250k
>25k
>3k
Rural
>250k
>25k
>3k
Rural
0%
Fourth
level
Highest
real
income
Figure 1 shows that car ownership is higher both for those on higher incomes
and for those living in rural areas, and there is also a trend towards higher
car ownership in smaller towns rather than larger cities. For those people in
households in the highest income bracket (top quintile) living in rural areas
77% have two or more cars. Car ownership is clearly related to income
levels, but also to rurality.
What is of interest here is that for those in rural areas on the lowest two
income groups the prevalence of car ownership is very much higher than for
their income counterparts in urban areas. For higher income groups single
car ownership is high for all groups and the income related variation between
urban and rural areas is generally in multiple car ownership. From this we
can almost certainly conclude that many more of these people buy a car out
of necessity than their urban counterparts. But the figure of 36% of those in
the lowest income group in rural areas not having a car shows that the idea
that “car ownership is a necessity in rural areas” is not upheld.
Figure 1 points to car dependence for those on lower incomes, since it may
be assumed that people would not buy cars in such numbers if there were no
need (where incomes are low).
3.2 Car use by those on low and high incomes in rural areas
When we look at the use made of cars by those in rural areas there are
marked differences between those on lower and higher incomes. Figure 2
shows car driver mileage by those with full driving licences for drivers in
urban and rural areas by income quintile.
Figure 2 – Car miles driven per week by drivers with a full licence
250
200
150
100
50
0
Lowest
2nd
>250k
3rd
>25k
Source – National Travel Survey 1997-99
© Association for European Transport 2002
4th
>3k
Rural
Highest
It can be seen that those on higher incomes and those living in rural areas
who drive, drive further. Interestingly, the urban/ rural differences are most
marked for those on the highest and lowest incomes. It may be concluded
from this that for those on lower incomes the higher mileage is due to
necessity, while, for those on higher incomes this seems less likely (though it
does not logically follow, so the conclusion has to be treated with caution). It
would seem more likely that the average mileage of well over 200 miles per
week is more likely to be due to car reliance than dependence.
Figure 3 provides further evidence on this issue showing the proportions of
mileages driven by different income groups in rural areas. It can be seen that
for the poorest group a high proportion did not drive at all during the diary
week, a high proportion drove less than 100 miles, and about 12% drove
more than 200 miles, while for the highest income group over 45% drove
more than 200 miles.
Figure 3 – Mileage driven per week by full licence holders in rural areas
by income
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Lowest real Second level Third level
income
None
Under 50
50-100
100-200
Fourth level Highest real
income
200-500
Over 500
Source – National Travel Survey 1997-99
3.3 The use of non car modes in car owning households
Figure 4 shows trip rates for various modes of transport for those in the
lowest income quintile. It can be seen from Figure 4 that the level of overall
trip making varies little for those in the lowest income group in terms of where
they live. Rural residents make somewhat fewer trips but not markedly.
However, the level of car driving is higher (4.6 car driving trips per week in
rural areas, compared with 2.2 in the largest towns and cities), the level of car
passenger use is somewhat higher, and the levels of bus use and walking are
very much lower, reflecting greater distances and a lack of bus services. But
© Association for European Transport 2002
overall, car driving does not dominate, and is mixed with other modes,
especially walking.
Trips/ person/ week
Figure 4 – Trip rates by different modes for those in the lowest income
quintile
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
>250k
>25k
>3k
Rural
Total
Size of settlement
Car Driver
Car Passenger
Bus
Walk
Cycle
ALL
Source – National Travel Survey 1997-99
3.4 Other estimations of the degree of car dependence and reliance
The RAC Foundation’s report (RAC Foundation, 1995) into car dependence
asked respondents about their degree of dependence on the car. For a rural
area (Cleobury) 71% reported that they were strongly dependent on their car,
and further 10% somewhat dependent. The rest (19%) described themselves
as ‘not really dependent’. None described themselves as ‘certainly not
dependent’ compared with 5-10% in urban areas.
Using the data from the RAC study and other sources Gray (2001) estimates
that for rural areas:
• 25% of car trips are ‘car dependent’,
• 35% are ‘heavily reliant on the car’,
• 20% are reliant, and
• 20% are ‘discretionary/ reliant’ or ‘discretionary’.
Gray points out the dangers in quantifying data in this way, but it implies that
while about one quarter of car trips could be described as dependent, around
one half are ‘reliant’ on the car, and a smaller proportion are made by car out
of habit.
© Association for European Transport 2002
4. THE EXTENT OF A LACK OF CAR RELIANCE IN RURAL AREAS
The above section has pointed to the existence on car dependence and
reliance in rural areas. But on the other hand there is much behaviour in
rural areas that points to a lack of car reliance for many rural residents. The
closeness to bus services is the best indicator available that shows how other
factors than income and rurality can affect behaviour available in the National
Travel Survey. Table 1 shows levels of car ownership for those in rural areas
and small towns depending on closeness to an hourly or better bus service.
Table 1 – Car ownership in rural areas relative to bus service provision
Rural areas
Small towns
Less than 13 minutes Others Less than 13 minutes Others
walk from an hourly
walk from an hourly
or better bus service
or better bus service
No car
11
6
17
10
One car
44
38
43
40
Two+ cars
44
55
39
50
Source – National Travel Survey 1997-99
It is apparent that those living close to such a bus service have lower levels
of car ownership than those who do not have a service. This points to those
in more accessible locations having less need for car ownership.
For those on the lowest incomes this effect is even more marked, as Table 2
shows. For those who live within 13 minutes walk of an hourly or better bus
service much fewer have two cars than for their counterparts further from a
service or near one with a lower frequency. (4% of those in the lowest
income quintile in rural areas compared with 16% for all).
Table 2 – Car ownership for those on the lowest incomes in rural areas
by access to a bus service
13mins to hourly or better
Others
All
None
46
30
36
One
50
45
47
Two +
4
25
16
Sample
136
186
322
Source – National Travel Survey 1997-99
When proximity to a bus service is taken into account the use of buses by
those in rural areas is seen to increase, as Figure 5 shows. Those with no
car close to an hourly or better bus service make an average of 1.6 bus trips
per person per week (higher than the national average for all of about 1.2 per
week). For those with cars the rates are lower (about 0.8 for those in
households with 1 car, and 0.55 for those with two or more cars). It is also
notable that even where an hourly or better bus service is not within 13
minutes walk the trip rate is just under 1 trip per person per week. Clearly
© Association for European Transport 2002
there are bus services which operate less frequently and which are used by
rural residents.
Figure 5 – Bus trips per person per week by household car ownership
for those living in rural areas within 13 minutes of an hourly or better
bus service, or not
Bus trips/ person/ week
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
No car
1 car
With bus
2+ cars
Without bus
Source – National Travel Survey 1997-99
5. THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENSURING CHOICE OF TRAVEL IN
RURAL AREAS
5.1 Summary of degree of car reliance in rural areas
The findings above point to the well recognised high degree of use of cars in
rural areas, but the evidence of use of other modes by car owners, and the
extent of bus use in areas where the service level is such as to provide
workable accessibility to at least one service centre shows that car reliance is
not universal, and point to the possibilities of further reduction, if policies are
followed that enable it.
5.2 Universal car ownership
Car ownership is often regarded as virtually universal in rural areas, while
data shows that around 13% of households in rural areas do not have a car.
But even if a policy of encouraging 100% car ownership were implemented
with subsidies or lower fuel costs here will always be those who are will not
have full access to a car:
• Those aged under 17 are not allowed to drive and would rely on other
household members for lifts,
• After the age of about 80 ageing makes driving difficult for a large
proportion of people (though for some this ageing can occur later or
earlier),
© Association for European Transport 2002
•
Many medical conditions can lead to an inability to drive which may be
temporary or permanent
Thus, a policy of ensuring ‘full car ownership’ probably means reaching about
95% ownership, with a further 20% of the population dependent on others for
their transport.
In addition any increases in car ownership and use in rural areas are likely to
lead to further decline in local rural facilities. It has been increases in car
ownership and use that have enabled the decline in rural services through
the processes of:
• Those with cars choosing to use them to access more distant facilities
that offer lower prices through economies of scale,
• Those with cars choosing to use them instead of public transport, and
• People with cars choosing to live in areas that are not accessible by
public transport.
With further increases in car ownership these trends would be likely to
continue.
5.3 Taxis to provide for those without car access
Some rural transport policy thinking is based on the premise that it would be
much cheaper to provide rural residents who do not have access to cars with
taxis than subsidise buses which are “empty”. To do this would require
‘means testing’ of people to assess whether they should receive the benefits
of subsidised taxi travel, and deciding how many vouchers and of what value
should be distributed.
It is worth examining what the consequences of this policy option would be.
Some of the likely consequences include:
•
•
•
•
•
Identifying those defined as in need would be problematic since the
criteria of what defines need are extremely difficult to quantify,
Having defined those eligible, some would feel stigmatised into
claiming since they would not identify themselves as being in need,
Loss of patronage would be likely to occur on existing bus routes,
Those not identified as ‘in need’ might lose existing bus services,
Much of the goodwill by which informal lift giving is done might be lost,
as well as the social interactivity of those who use public transport
together, further re-enforcing any decline in rural community
interaction
Other problems include the lack of readiness of the taxi industry to take on
such a role. At times of day such as the ‘school run’ hours it is generally not
possible to order a taxi in rural areas at short notice since all are being used
to carry children to and from school. Schemes such as taxi vouchers would
help increase the number of rural taxis
© Association for European Transport 2002
6. WHAT CAN BE DONE
To provide long term alternatives to car reliance in rural areas requires
concerted action across a wide range of areas of transport and service
provision. But put together the changes needed are not especially radical or
revolutionary. The following sections outline changes that would all make
their mark.
6.1 Providing alternatives to the car
Data on travel behaviour in rural areas shows walking to be the second most
common mode after the car with around 20% of journeys being made on foot.
By comparison bus use is low, as is cycling in most areas. This reflects the
current paucity of public transport provision for the longer distance journey
requirements that people have. Increasingly journey destinations desired are
not those in centres served by public transport, but edge of town locations, or
locations other than in the town that a local bus service happens to serve.
The high level of walking shows that many activities are carried out locally.
6.2 Walking and cycling encouragement
Surveys show that lack of local facilities, the lack of adequate footways, and
the danger of traffic are all barriers to increased levels of walking. Often
villages have local services which are easily reached on foot from some parts
of a village but outlying areas may be along routes that have high levels of
traffic and no footway, or the services themselves are on busy narrow
sections of road.
Local parish accessibility audits could highlight such issues and provide or
argue the case with Local Authorities for improvements such as crossings
within villages, adequate footways along roads, or improvements to off road
pedestrian routes to enable their use in wet weather and when pushing
buggies or shopping trolleys.
The scope for increases in cycling levels will depend on factors such as the
relative hilliness of the area, and the local culture of cycling. Currently
around 2% of the population cycle regularly, a figure that is probably mainly
due to culture and belief in personal levels of fitness, and the importance of
saving time than the nature of journeys that people make. In some areas
there may be little that can be done in the short term to increase cycling
levels, but in others barriers exist that can be overcome in terms of, for
example, short sections of busy road have to be used to access between
villages and towns, a lack of knowledge of quiet routes for cycling that exist.
The safe routes to school initiatives and others have shown that increases in
walking and cycling in rural areas are possible.
© Association for European Transport 2002
6.3 Provision of public transport
6.3.1 High quality high speed bus links
Where good high frequency bus services are provided they are used. A
fifteen minute frequency service is provided between Oxford and the market
town of Witney some 12 miles away. Fifty per cent of people travelling
between Witney and Oxford use these buses which provides a solid base for
patronage and there is a high rate of picking up of patronage from the
villages along the route. The buses take advantage of bus priorities within
Oxford and car parking charges are high in Central Oxford. Links to other
neighbouring towns such as Bicester and Abingdon have also shown large
increases in use.
A large proportion of rural journeys have destinations in urban areas. In
terms of modal shift more can be achieved by allowing people to access high
frequency fast services to towns and cities than by providing relatively low
frequency services at slower speeds to all rural locations. There is a conflict
here between provision to enable reduction in reliance on the car against
reducing social exclusion (which will be addressed later). As a rough rule of
thumb, and road carrying 10,000 vehicles per day should be able to support a
commercial bus service at a 15 minute headway if 10% of users could be
encouraged to shift to bus use for that section of their journey (assuming that
there is no existing bus use already in which case the shift needed is less).
With a 15 minute headway patronage is likely to grow – at 30 minutes (a 5%
shift needed) patronage is likely to remain stable. Thus, with parking charges
and bus priorities in towns and cities it should be possible to provide
commercial services (after some pump priming) to smaller towns around
larger towns and cities in the denser populated rural areas of England.
In less densely populated areas initiatives such as InterConnect in
Lincolnshire have shown that hourly services between towns forty miles apart
can be successful and increase patronage when linked to other more local
services.
Building on successes such as these it should be possible to create a
network of high speed bus services between all towns and cities that provide
a backbone service level. Much of the patronage will come from people
travelling between the towns rather than providing for access for the rural
areas in between.
6.3.2 Local transport service provision
In order to provide a service to cater for rural areas requires that people living
outside the major villages and small towns where the high speed services
would serve can access them.
• For those using cars most scope could be made from using stops
along the routes as unofficial park and ride sites (also with secure
cycle parking facilities).
© Association for European Transport 2002
•
For those without full access to a car the services could be reached
using
o local public transport that synchronises with the high speed
services, or
o community transport in its various forms, or
o through lift giving, or
o taxis carrying people to the interchanges rather than to their
destination.
The importance of linking local transport services of different types to more
strategic routes is emphasised by Cullinane and Stokes (1998).
6.3.3 Demand responsive transport linked to transport networks
Demand responsive transport can be provided with a variety of degrees of
responsiveness to demands. Examples include:
• Services that pick people up from a range of locations and take them
to one place,
• Services that pick people up from a variety of locations and take them
to locations of their choice,
• Services that run to a route but deviate off that route in response to
demand.
The appropriateness of such demand responsive services will depend on a
number of factors. The lower the overall demand for public transport in an
area the greater degree of demand responsiveness can be accommodated by
one bus before other users are disadvantaged, and the larger an area can be
covered. If such services are successful they may be killed by their own
success if there is not scope to adapt the service to meet the varying
demands.
If such systems are to provide for more than minority and niche demands it is
essential that they can offer reliable services at short notice that will connect
people either to their final destination, or at synchronised times to the more
strategic network.
6.3.4 Community level transport provision linked to transport networks
Community Transport as a generic term covers a wide range of transport
activity, ranging from services that run regular services for the whole
population of an area to small scale lift giving schemes catering for limited
groups or journey purposes. The Community Transport Association (CTA,
2002) estimates that there are some 10 million journeys per year made in
community minibuses, while other community transport such as shared cars
plays an important role too.
While community transport initiatives tend to be small scale their impacts are
often targeted to solving issues of social exclusion to a much greater degree
than conventional services, or provision such as taxis. Encouraging such
© Association for European Transport 2002
transport can benefit rural areas in many ways other than the provision of
transport alone – it can aid the social economy and community cohesion
while reduce isolation and social exclusion.
To encourage community transport requires:
• Motivating local people to act as volunteers,
• Government enabling greater community transport provision by
removing barriers to its expansion (while ensuring that it maintains its
community aspects),
• Local and central government providing necessary back up and
funding to enable community transport to be properly provided by
appropriate vehicles and well and efficiently run.
Community Transport exists in a variety of forms with much providing
specialist provision such as enabling people with disabilities to access
hospitals for appointments or visits. But it is important that if community
transport is to provide for accessibility to a range of services that it can link to
the more strategic public transport networks. While the bus service most
needed from rural locations may be access to a local market town, linking
and synchronisation to a frequent and reliable intertown link could reduce the
need for extra travel by the community transport itself.
The linking of community transport to strategic services is complex, since the
motivations of volunteers may be to provide door to door services for
particular groups, and becoming part of a wider public transport provision
may be against the wishes of community provision, but for many areas the
scope for community transport to play an greater role in integrated public
transport is very large.
6.4 Encouraging local services and facilities
One of the reasons that the car is thought to be a necessity in rural areas is
the lack of local services and facilities. The Countryside Agencies rural
services survey (Countryside Agency, 2001) shows that:
• 93.5% of rural households live within 2 kms of a post office
• 92% of rural households are within 2 kms of a primary school
• 72% of rural settlements had no shop,
• 50% of settlements with a population over 1000 people had no shop
Since walking is a major mode of transport in rural areas it follows that if more
services were provide locally there is scope for increasing accessibility
through walking and cycling. Benchmarking of facility provision by settlement
size and benchmarking local accessibility levels, along with systems to
ensure that prices were not very much greater than in larger stores that
‘benefit’ from economies of scale could greatly reduce the need for car trips.
The key would seem to be that all settlements above a threshold size or
importance have a range of key services. Where these are lacking services
should be available from ‘one stop’ shops that provide a wider range of
© Association for European Transport 2002
services than single facilities can. Thus, for example pubs with shop and
post office facilities can be useful, if they can be set up in a way that is
practicable. It is important to ensure that goods and services can be
provided at costs that are comparable with larger outlets elsewhere if those
with cars are to use local services for at least some of their needs.
6.5 Discouraging wasteful/ unnecessary use of cars
This section heading may falsely imply a value judgement about what is
“wasteful” or “necessary” use of cars. This is not the intention – more to
highlight ways on which people can be encouraged to use modes other than
the car where it would be practicable and convenient to do so. The keys are
seen to be:
• Awareness of alternatives
• Information to allow use of alternatives
• Pricing so as to discourage high levels of mileage but not to
discriminate against essential use of cars
• The provision of local services and facilities with competitive pricing
and opening hours
7. CONCLUSIONS
The conclusion of this paper are that there is considerable scope for reducing
reliance on the car in rural areas that will not negatively impact on people
living in those areas but increase their choice of travel modes and
destinations and increase quality of life. This conclusion is drawn on the
basis that car dependency and reliance is not as great in rural areas as many
assume, and that there are many cases where those who one would assume
would show car reliance do not.
The main lesson is that transport policy that aims to ease congestion and to
affect a modal shift from the car to other modes should not concentrate solely
on urban areas. There are major gains to be made from efforts to switch
modes for inter-urban travel, and changes can be brought about, in the
longer term, that will benefit rural residents by providing for facilities in
locations that are local, and in providing a public transport service that allows
for travel for a reasonable proportion of rural dwellers’ journey needs.
Acknowledgements
This paper was written while the author was with Steer Davies Gleave Ltd. It
does not necessarily represent the views or policies of the Countryside
Agency
Bibliography
Community Transport Association (2002) Website address www.communitytransport.com
© Association for European Transport 2002
Countryside Agency (2001) Rural Services Survey 2000. Countryside
Agency, Cheltenham
Cullinane, S., Stokes, G. (1998) Rural Transport Policy, Pergamon, Oxford
Farrington, J., Gray, D., Martin, S., and Roberts, D. (1998) Car dependence
in rural Scotland: challenges and policies. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh
Gray D (2001) Rural transport: an overview of key issues. Commission for
Integrated Transport, London
RAC Foundation (1995) Car dependence.
© Association for European Transport 2002