Behavioural change measures (‘Smarter Choices’) - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 255

16.2 Car dependency
There are a number of different attributes to which the term 'car dependency' can be
applied. All have some bearing on the propensity of particular individuals or groups to
utilise cars for their travel. Here we are concerned with the way these act as barriers
to the use of alternative modes (i.e. conflict with the prospective take-up of 'smarter
choices'). We will be distinguishing between car use, car reliance and car habit.
People can be differentiated simply on the basis of their car use , i.e. the proportion
of their travel they make by car (especially as a car driver). Used in this way the term
'car dependence' conveys nothing about whether it is practicable for the journeys to
be made by means other than a car and if so whether the individual concerned would
recognise the fact and be willing to do so. Nevertheless the mere extent of car use
has important implications for the pattern of travel choices over time (Goodwin et
al. 1995). (Evidence of the significance of car availability as a factor in car use was
presented earlier in section 2.9.)
By definition the higher the level of car use amongst any community the less use
will be made of other modes and the fewer and/or poorer the standard of these will
be as a result. The starting point from which any other mode may be promoted as
an alternative to the car is therefore objectively lower. Furthermore, given the status
conventionally associated with cars, the prevalence of car use will have a strong
conditioning effect as a social norm.
Increasing levels of car ownership also affect the behaviour and attitudes of
non-drivers because of the greater opportunity for them to travel as car passengers,
courtesy of lifts given by friends or family members. This is especially important in the
conditioning effect upon children. Those who have not learnt how to use walking,
cycling and public transport as part of a range of options to fulfil their travel needs are
not in a neutral position to exercise 'choice' when they reach adulthood.
Increasing car ownership also tends to generate car reliance . Households without
cars or with only one car between two adults will be more concerned to choose places
to live, work and shop in ways which enable them to function without being reliant
on driving or getting a lift. If they get a (second) car this constraint no longer applies
- in fact it may be acquired deliberately in order to free up such choices. A pattern of
activities will then evolve which, to a greater or lesser extent, is predicated on each
adult able to use a car independently.
The car reliance which is built into people's choices about the spatial patterning of
their lives acts as a practical barrier to them changing mode, even if in principle they
were willing to consider such a thing. Table 16.1 shows the results of a Scottish study
which asked people who currently drove for four main activities whether it would be
practical to use other forms of transport (reported in Stradling 2003). Car reliance
was demonstrated to range between 28% and 57% for these trip purposes. The scope
for attracting drivers out of their cars for short trips (under 5 miles) more generally is
reported in Mackett (2001).
The fact that a large proportion of drivers report that they have 'no option' but to
use a car accounts for the widespread hostility generated by national or local policies
which seek to make car use more difficult or expensive. In these circumstances what
may be presented as a stimulus for people to make 'smarter choices' in their travel
behaviour is actually implying that they restructure their lives! Unsurprisingly this is
not welcome if accompanied by a metaphorical gun to their heads. However there is
scope to present restructuring in a much more constructive manner if it can be tied in