The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

ATTITUDES TO CAR USE AND MODAL SHIFT IN SCOTLAND

1.2 About the Scottish Social Attitudes survey

The 2002 SSA was the fourth in a series of studies run by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) Scotland. Its aim is to provide independent, authoritative, high quality data on social and political attitudes in Scotland in order both to inform public policy and facilitate the academic study of public opinion, in much the same way that NatCen's British Social Attitudes survey has done since 1983 across Britain as a whole.

The SSA is not an opinion poll. Polls take the 'pulse' of the public at frequent intervals, using quota sampling methods and asking only a small number of questions about each topic. Scottish Social Attitudes, in contrast, explores issues in much greater detail and aims to identify underlying patterns in people's attitudes and values and how these patterns change over time.

The survey takes place annually and is based on a random sample of around 1,600 people from throughout Scotland (including a booster sample of respondents in rural areas). As such, it is large enough to explore variations across key sub-groups and, through its use of rigorous probability sampling, offers a high degree of precision and confidence in the results.

The sample is obtained by taking a sample of the addresses held by the Post Office in its postcode address file and then attempting to interview a randomly selected person aged 18+ living at each address. No information is published from the survey that makes it possible to identify any individual participant, only statistical summaries of the pattern of attitudes across groups of individuals.

Further details about the way the survey is carried out and a copy of the questions asked as part of the 2002 transport module can be found in Appendices A and B to this report.

2.1 The extent of car use

Although the SSA was not intended to provide definitive measures of transport-related behaviours (more precise indicators are available from sources such as the Scottish Household Survey and the National Travel Survey), it nevertheless provides some valuable pointers about the nature and extent of current car use in Scotland. This is useful information in its own right, and it also helps to make sense of the attitudinal data collected by the survey.

Perhaps the first thing to say is that, while the car is not yet as ubiquitous as the television or the telephone, three-quarters of Scottish adults now live in households which own or have regular use of at least one car. Of course, not all car users are actually drivers. That said, more than six in ten adults (63%) say that they do currently drive.

Table 1 - Household access to cars and current drivers

There is, however, considerable variation in patterns of car access and use across different sections of the population. While equivalent proportions of males and females live in households with access to a car, three-quarters of males compared to half of females currently drive. Those in the youngest and oldest age groups are less likely to live in households with access to a vehicle or to be current drivers. People living in Scotland's rural areas are more likely than those in urban areas to be drivers or to have access to a vehicle through their household. ¹ And car access and use is most clearly and radically patterned by income. Among respondents in the highest income quartile, just one in twenty lives in a household without access to a car or van - compared with more than half of those in the lowest income quartile - and 69% live in households where both they and other household members have vehicles.

Overall, then, those most likely to have access to cars and to be drivers themselves are males, those with higher household incomes, those resident in less urban areas, and those aged between 25 and 64.

None of the above variations are particularly surprising. However, it is easy to forget that car access and car use are not uniform phenomena - in the sense that they vary in extent across different sections of the population, but also in their causes and consequences. We should not assume that the factors that drive (or restrain) car use among young people are necessarily the same as among older people; or that a given level of car ownership is equally problematic in both rural and urban areas. In other words, policies aimed at securing modal shift need to be focused on particular groups - both to ensure that behavioural change happens where it is most needed, and that the buttons that are pressed are indeed the right ones. The following sections explore these issues in more detail.

2.2 Frequency of car use

Of course, simply having access to a car or having a driving licence is not, in itself, evidence of car use or car dependency. If car ownership was widespread but actual car use limited - as in a number of European countries with more attractive public transport systems - there would be a less pressing need to achieve modal shift. In practice, however, it is clear not only that most people have (or have access to) cars, but that most also use them relatively often.

Of those who drive, 70% say that they do so every day or almost every day, and a further 19% indicate that they drive at least on between 2 and 5 days per week. If we look at car use as either a driver or a passenger, over half of all respondents (55%) said that they travel by car every day or almost every day.

Again, stark differences are evident by household income here. Whereas three-quarters of those in the highest income quartile (78%) use a car every day or almost every day, the same is true of just three in ten (29%) of those in the lowest income quartile.

Although residents of rural areas are more likely to have access to a car and to actually drive, if one looks solely at car users, there are no clear differences in frequency of use between those in urban and rural areas.

2.3 Comparisons with other modes of transport

How does car use compare with use of other forms of transport? To set the above figures in context, the following graph shows the frequency with which respondents say they use cars (as driver or passenger), buses, trains and bicycles.

Figure 1 - Frequency of use of different forms of transport

Base=all respondents (n= 1,665), except 'car - driver', asked of current drivers only (n=1,008)

What is immediately clear from this is that the car remains the mode of transport of choice (or constraint) of the vast majority of the population. No other form of transport comes close in terms of the proportion of respondents saying that they use it regularly. Perceptions and use of other forms of transport are returned to in the sections that follow.

2.4 Distance travelled and the type of journeys made

Respondents were asked not only how often they travel by car but also to estimate how many miles they travel by car (as driver or passenger) in an average week. This provides further evidence of the extent to which car use is structured into our daily lives - around three-quarters of car users (73%) say that they travel less than 100 miles each week; indeed, half (46%) travel less than 50 miles by car each week, suggesting that much car use is for relatively short trips.

What, then, do people in Scotland use their cars for? Respondents were asked about the types of journeys that they often make by car (not including any travel as part of their employment or by taxi or minicab). Three-quarters of car users (74%) often use a car for shopping, around two-thirds (65%) to visit family and friends and roughly half (46%) to commute to a place of education, work or training.

When respondents were asked, however, which type of journey is responsible for most of the miles they travel by car, a rather different picture emerges. Viewed from this perspective, travel to a place of education, work or training emerges as the most significant journey type (mentioned by 37% of car users).

Figure 2 - Type of car journey responsible for most of the miles travelled by car

Base=current drivers (n= 1,008)

2.5 Why don't people drive cars?

Before moving on to examine what the survey tells us about the possibilities for shifting current car users towards other modes of transport, it may be instructive to consider the views of those people who do not currently drive.

Those people who do not currently drive a car were asked about the reasons for this and their answers are summarised in Table 2. Across all sub-groups, the most commonly mentioned reason (by 64% of non-drivers) was simply that the respondent could not drive or did not have a licence. This response is not, in itself, especially revealing, since it masks a number of other issues, such as age (they may not yet have started learning), income (they may not have a licence because they cannot afford to learn or to run a motor vehicle), need (all their travel needs may be adequately met by other forms of transport) or choice (they may have principled objections to car use or simply dislike cars or driving).

The next most common response is perhaps more telling: 31% of current non-drivers say that the reason for this is that they cannot afford to drive. This implies both that a significant proportion of non-drivers would drive if they could and, perhaps, that economic factors may be of particular significance in dissuading current drivers from doing so (though, as we shall see later, responses to other questions partly undermine this argument). Again, this response is especially common among young people - mentioned by 42% of those aged 18-24, compared with just 20% of those aged 65 or over. There are, then, few grounds for optimism in the observation that young people are less likely than those in subsequent age groups to have and to use cars. This is not necessarily evidence of generational shift in attitudes towards different forms of transport, but is simply a reflection of younger people's limited options and opportunities. Other recent studies have suggested that while many young people don't have cars, most aspire to, for the access and identity benefits that membership of the car community confers (Stradling, 2002a, b, c; Stradling et al, 2001)

Among older people, there is clearly already a sizeable minority for whom car use is either unnecessary or impossible (because of health problems or disability).

Interestingly, the proportion of respondents indicating that they do not drive because car use is bad for the environment is highest among those in the top income quartile. As we have seen, however, 19 out of 20 people in this group do currently drive. It is also almost three times as common among people educated to degree level as among those with lower educational qualifications.

However, there is little evidence among current non-drivers of a principled objection to car use, only 7% citing that it is 'bad for the environment'. This mirrors findings from an earlier study for the Scottish Executive of non-car use which reported that "Advantages of not using a car were perceived mainly in personal terms - reduced stress levels … absence of parking problems, cost savings and improved fitness. Fewer respondents cited wider environmental or altruistic benefits" (Scottish Executive, 1999, p.1). This suggests that there is little prospect of persuading current drivers to part with their vehicles (or to use them less) solely by focusing on the negative impacts of car use at an environmental or societal level. Far more important, it would seem from this analysis, are the individual level levers of price, availability and attractiveness of other types of provision.

Table 2 - Reasons people don't drive cars

Base=non-drivers (n= 657); multiple response - answers may sum to more than 100%

3.1 Alternatives to car use

We saw earlier that the types of journeys that most people are likely to make by car at some point are to go shopping or to visit friends or relatives, but that the type of journey that consumes the most road miles is to travel to a place of employment, training or education - testimony to the impact that Green Travel Plans to work and school could achieve towards modal shift. In order to gain a sense of whether people feel there are already viable alternatives to car travel for the types of journeys they make most often, respondents were asked how they would travel if, for some reason, they were no longer able to go by car (Table 3).

For most people, for most types of trips, bus is the viable alternative, although for certain types of (typically highly local) journeys, such as travel to school/nursery or to the shops, walking and taxi/minicab are also mentioned by a sizeable minority of respondents.

Table 3 - Type of transport would use if unable to travel by car by journey type

Base=respondents using car for type of journey made most frequently (n= 624)

Only around one car user in ten feels that they have no alternative to the car for the type of journey that they make most often, though in relation to travel to a place of work, education or training, or for leisure activities, this figure rises to 13%. Other recent research on Scottish drivers (Farrington et al, 1998; NFO System Three Social Research and Napier University Transport Research Institute, 2001, 2003; Stradling, 2003) has reported similar levels of structural dependence on the car, distinguishing between those who are structurally car dependent - the unable ('I could not do otherwise') - and those who are consciously car dependent - the unwilling ('Maybe I could, but I don't want to').

This suggests, however, that the vast majority of car users could make alternative arrangements for the vast majority of their journeys if they had to. Why, then, do they not do so? Respondents were asked what they thought would be the main disadvantages of using this alternative form of transport compared to the car. Their responses, both for commuter-type journeys and for all other journey types are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 - Disadvantages of alternative forms of transport

Base=respondents able to travel by alternative mode for main journey type (n= 530)

Perhaps the first thing to note is the very small proportion of respondents who say that there would be no disadvantages in switching to an alternative mode of transport - though, since people who travel by car do so precisely because of the advantages it offers, this is perhaps not surprising. The two most common disadvantages mentioned relate to length of journey time and convenience. For travel to work or education, lack of certainty about arrival time and a perception of greater discomfort are also substantial considerations. Although cost is mentioned as a disadvantage by around a third of respondents, on the basis of this evidence, it does not appear to be the most common consideration.

A further indication of the extent to which car users could switch to other forms of transport comes in the form of response to two agree-disagree statements: 'Many of the short journeys I now make by car I could just as easily walk' and 'Many of the short journeys I now make by car I could just as easily go by bus'. Thirty-eight per cent of current car users agreed with the first of these (10% agreeing strongly) and 33% with the second (5% strongly). Although slightly higher proportions in each case disagreed, the results still suggest significant numbers of car users are not necessarily constrained to use a car through absence of opportunity to do otherwise.

Just as revealing are responses to a further statement: 'Even if the public transport in my area was really good, I would still want to travel by car most of the time.' The critical word here is 'want', signalling this as a clear measure of personal preference or inclination. Around half of all car users agree with the statement (14% agreeing strongly) and only around a quarter disagreed (6% strongly). Interestingly, however, the proportion disagreeing was slightly higher among the critical group of respondents in the highest income quartile - 30% of whom did so, 12% strongly - suggesting that richer respondents are less strongly attached to their cars.

3.2 Attitudes towards bus travel

We have seen that, when asked about alternative modes of transport, car users are most likely to say that they could make existing journeys by bus. Why, then, do more not already do so? And why do those who already do, not do so more often? This section explores these issues in more detail.

One hypothesis is that people feel insecure or unsafe using buses, particularly after dark. The results from the SSA (Table 5) suggest that this is not generally the case - 58% of respondents agreed with the statement 'bus travel is safe' and just one in five disagreed. There are, however, age and gender effects here and these should not be overlooked - 65% of men agreed with the statement that 'bus travel is safe', for example, compared with 56% of women; 72% of 18-24 year-olds agreed, compared with 56% of those aged 65 or over.

One further point worth noting is that, where concerns about safety do exist, they do not necessarily seem to spring from a fear of the unknown: the proportion disagreeing with the statement and thus not seeing bus travel as safe was slightly higher among those who travel by bus every day than among those who do so less often.

Table 5 - Agreement/disagreement with statements about bus travel

Base=all respondents (n= 1,665)

There is greater agreement that buses are insufficiently frequent (50%, with 13% agreeing strongly) and cost too much (40%, with 10% agreeing strongly) - though in neither case does a clear majority of the population believe this to be so. There was also relatively little disagreement with the proposition that 'buses in your area generally run on time' (28%, compared with 47% in agreement).

We noted earlier that access to and use of cars are by no means uniform phenomena and that important variations exist in attitudes and behaviour across geographic areas and population sub-groups. The same, of course, is also true in relation to other forms of transport. It is not surprising, then, that perceptions of bus travel are markedly different in accessible urban compared to remote urban or rural locations (Table 6).

Table 6 - Agreement/disagreement with statements about bus travel by urban/rural

Base=all urban respondents (n= 1,116), all rural respondents (n=549)

The results above can be summarised as follows: urban buses are less likely than rural ones to be seen as safe and to run on time, while rural buses are more likely than urban ones to be seen as insufficiently frequent. There is no significant difference between urban and rural areas in terms of perceptions of the cost of bus travel.

Another way of looking at these results is to order them in terms of the proportions of respondents holding a negative opinion in relation to each aspect of bus travel asked about - i.e. agreeing or disagreeing with each proposition, depending on the slant of the question. This suggests that - in both urban and rural locations - people are most likely to have negative perceptions of bus travel in relation to the frequency of buses, followed by cost, then punctuality and, finally, personal safety. While such findings do not translate neatly into priorities for action, since we know nothing about the intensity with which such views are held or about their actual impact on behaviour, they do suggest that actions to improve service frequency and reduce cost are most likely to have a positive impact on general attitudes towards bus travel.

On a related note, respondents were asked simply how good the public transport is in their area. Not surprisingly, those living in urban locations were far more likely than those in rural areas to rate it as either good or very good (Table 7).

Table 7 - Rating of local public transport provision by urban/rural

Base=all respondents

In both urban and rural areas, non-drivers were far more sanguine than drivers about existing public transport provision (Table 8).

Table 8 - Rating of local public transport provision by urban/rural and car drivers/non-drivers

Base=all respondents

And car drivers' rating of local public transport provision varies with frequency of usage, as shown in Table 9.

(Ratings of local public transport as very good and good have been collapsed, as have ratings of bad and very bad, and these are cross tabulated with frequency of use of local buses, separately for accessible urban or rural and remote urban car drivers.)

Table 9 - Rating of local transport provision by urban and rural car drivers by frequency of local bus use

Base=all urban respondents (n= 1,116), all rural respondents (n=549)

Here we can see that car drivers who use their local buses regularly are more likely to rate the quality of local public transport as very good or good than are those who 'Never nowadays' use their local buses. This is true for both urban respondents - 72% of urban car drivers who use local buses once a month or more often rate local public transport as good compared to 50% of urban car drivers who don't use local buses - and for rural respondents, for whom the comparable figures are 52% of regular users rating them as good against 34% of non-users.

Two possible interpretations suggest themselves here. Drivers may hold (unfairly) negative views of public transport because they do not use it. Alternatively, they may hold accurate views of local public transport, and use their cars for precisely that reason. In other words, perceptions may drive car use, or car use may drive attitudes. In reality, for most people, the two are probably mutually reinforcing.

We return to this theme below in discussing which population sub-groups appear most open to modal shift from car use to bus use for short journeys.

4.1 A typology of the potential for shift from car to bus travel for short trips

One way of conceptualising people's willingness and ability to shift modes is in terms of the factors that seem to drive their transport choices. Transport joins up the places where people go to lead their lives. Individual travel and transport decisions - whether and where to travel, and by what transport mode - may be seen as driven by the interaction of three broad factors: the individual's perception of their obligations ('What journeys do I have to make?'), opportunities ('How could I make these journeys?'), and inclinations ('How would I like to make these journeys?') (Stradling, 2003).

How do measures of opportunity and inclination relate to each other in terms of the potential for shift between car travel (the mode of choice of most people) and bus travel (the most favoured alternative)? By relating responses to the question about the possibility of making short journeys by bus by those to the question about the strength of the inclination to continue using a car, it is possible to construct a simple 2x2 matrix giving a typology of those current car users able or unable and those willing or unwilling to make this shift. Those who agreed with the statement, 'Many of the short journeys I now make by car, I could just as easily go by bus' we have classified as people who are ' able to shift'; and those who answered otherwise as those who are ' unable to shift', the structurally car dependent. Those who disagreed with the statement, 'Even if the public transport in my area was really good, I would still want to travel by car most of the time', we have classified as people who are ' willing to shift'; the rest as those who are ' unwilling to shift', the consciously car dependent.

On this basis, we can assign all car users (Table 10) - or separately drivers (Table 11) and passengers (Table 12) - to one of our four groups:

• Those who indicate that they would not still want to travel by car if public transport in their area was improved and who could make short journeys by bus (willing and able): Group 1
• Those who indicate that they could not make many of their current short car journeys by bus but would be likely to do so if public transport in their area was improved (willing but presently unable): Group 2
• Those who indicate that they already could make many short car journeys by bus but would be likely to continue to travel by car even if public transport in their area was improved (able but unwilling): Group 3
• Those who indicate that they could not currently make short car journeys by bus and would be likely to continue to travel by car even if public transport in their area was improved (unable and unwilling): Group 4

Table 10 - Segmentation of all car users in terms of ability and willingness to switch from car to bus travel for short trips

Table 11 - Segmentation of current car drivers in terms of ability and willingness to switch from car to bus travel for short trips

Table 12 - Segmentation of current car passengers in terms of ability and willingness to switch from car to bus travel for short trips

In terms of modal shift, the most promising groups are those in the top row, and especially those in the top-left quadrant, Group 1, whose responses indicate that they are both able to make short journeys by bus and willing to do so with better public transport in their area. This group, then, already appears to have both the opportunity and the inclination to shift modes. Those whose responses indicate that they are currently unable to make short journeys by bus but would be willing to do so if public transport provision were better (Group 2) seem to have the inclination to shift modes from car to bus for short trips, but do not currently have the opportunity to do so. An improvement in the quality of public transport would, prima facie, provide that opportunity.

Those whose responses indicate that they are currently able to make short journeys by bus but are unwilling to do so even if public transport were improved, Group 3, do not currently seem to be constrained by lack of opportunity and simply seem to lack the inclination to shift from car to bus travel. Those who are currently unable to make short journeys by bus and would be unwilling to even if public transport were improved, Group 4, may currently be constrained by lack of opportunity but also lack the inclination to shift modes, even if the issue of opportunity were to be addressed through improvements in public transport.

Overall, then, 25% of all car users respond in ways that suggest they would use the car less if public transport in their area was really good - the 'willing' - and around a third (32%) indicate they could replace many of their short car journeys by bus - the 'able'. The inverse of these figures, though, calibrates the size of the problem for policy makers. Two-thirds of this sample of Scottish car users (68%) attest to the combination of current bus service provision and land use - the location of origins and destinations - which they see as rendering them unable to substitute bus for car on short trips. Around three-quarters of current car users (75%) would still want to travel by car 'most of the time', even if local public transport were 'really good'.

The picture is slightly less positive if we look just at car drivers. Only 23% of this group appears willing to shift and 29% able to do so; and 55% fall into the least promising category of 'unwilling and unable'. However, car passengers appear slightly more amenable to change, with 31% willing and 43% able, and it may be possible to enlist passengers as agents for change amongst drivers.

4.2 Patterns of car use across the typology

The problem, however, is not just that a clear majority of car users are either unwilling, unable or both to switch to bus travel for short journeys - it is that those who are willing or able to switch already tend to use cars less often. Not surprisingly, levels of car dependence and car use are bound up with willingness and ability to switch to other modes.

For example, if we look at current drivers who indicate that they would be both able and willing to shift to bus travel for short journeys if public transport were improved (see Figure 3), we find that only 47% drive 'every day or nearly every day'. By contrast, the same is true for 81% of drivers who say they are able but unwilling to shift and for 74% of those who are both unable and unwilling. In other words, those who are easiest to shift are perhaps those who least need shifting, while those who are most difficult to shift - that is, who appear to lack both the opportunity and the inclination to do so - are most likely to use their cars 'every day or almost every day'. Similar patterns are evident in relation to the average number of miles travelled by car per week. Those most willing to and able to shift tend to report the lowest mileage, and those unwilling and unable to do so, the highest. One reason why the willing and able drive less often and have lower mileages is that they are already making more frequent use of their local bus services, as Figure 3 also shows. Familiarity with a travel mode reduces initial worry and uncertainty about safe and timely arrival (Brog, 1998; Hine et al, 2003; Stradling, 2002b,c) and, as we have seen in Table 9, more frequent service users are more likely to rate it as good.

Figure 3 - Willingness/ability to shift to bus travel by key measures of car use

Base=all car users (n=1,116)

In some ways, the 'willing but unable' and the 'able but unwilling' emerge from this analysis as the two key groups for policy intervention, since in both cases there are indications that either the opportunity or the inclination to shift is already present and, equally importantly, that such a shift might have a significant effect in terms of reducing the overall number of car trips made.

4.3 Segmentation by sub-group

So far, we have looked at this segmentation only at the level of the sample as a whole. How is it patterned within particular sub-groups? Several points worth noting emerge here.

• More non-drivers (i.e. those from households with access to a car but who travel only as passengers) report themselves as able to substitute bus for car for short journeys, and appear slightly more willing to do so.
• There are no statistically significant differences between male and female drivers, nor amongst drivers from different age groups.
• There is no significant difference between the highest and lowest income quartiles in terms of the proportions of car drivers who indicate that they are able to shift, though 30% of drivers from better-off households say that they would be willing to do so, compared to 17% of lowest quartile car drivers.
• In terms of urban-rural comparisons, there is a big difference in the proportion of car drivers saying that they would be able to shift (significantly higher in urban areas), but no significant difference in the proportions indicating that they would actually be willing to do so. Not surprisingly, these patterns are also evident in regional comparisons. For example, drivers in the Borders and the Highlands & Islands are less likely than those in more urbanised areas to indicate that they are able to shift, but are no less likely to say that they would be willing to do so.

5.1 Influences on mode of transport choice

Why, then, do people make the choices they do about mode of travel? In particular, what is it that people value so highly about travel by car? If we want to understand what might shift car users (of various kinds) into other forms of transport, we need to understand what gets them into their cars in the first place.

We have already been given a strong indication - in responses to questions about the perceived disadvantages of alternatives to car travel for common journey types - of the importance of convenience and travel time. These findings are reinforced in answers to a question that asked people specifically about the factors that they usually consider when deciding what form of transport to use.

Figure 4 - Key influences on modal choice

Base=all respondents (n=1,665)

Again, considerations of environmental impact figure at the bottom of the list, outweighed by concerns about the anticipated impact of the journey on their individual convenience, time schedule and wallet. And this rank ordering is generally preserved across population sub-groups.

Looking at differences between population sub-groups on each of these mode choice influences:

• The importance of convenience is higher for drivers than for non-drivers and, amongst drivers, is higher for those based in urban areas and highest for those in the top income quartile. The importance of convenience is lower for the youngest drivers (aged 18-24).
• Journey time is cited as a consideration more often by drivers than non-drivers. Amongst the drivers, it is cited more often by the 18-24 year olds and least often by those aged 65 and over; more often by urban and highest income quartile drivers; and more often by those drivers willing to shift.
• Cost was more likely to be cited as a consideration by non-drivers and, among drivers, by 18-24 year olds and lower income quartile respondents.
• The weather was more likely to be mentioned by urban than rural drivers, perhaps because more rural drivers have less choice in travel mode, whatever the weather.
• Comfort proved important to more male than female drivers and was less important to those drivers designated 'willing' to substitute bus for car on short trips.
• Health and fitness was mentioned by fewer drivers and, amongst the drivers, by fewer 18-24 year olds, higher-income drivers, those able to shift and those unwilling to shift.
• There were no significant differences between population sub-groups in the proportions who mentioned safety.
• 'The environment', while mentioned relatively rarely overall, was mentioned substantially more often by high-income and 'willing' drivers.
• Over a quarter of rural drivers said they usually considered 'None of these' factors in deciding what form of transport to use, suggesting they felt they had no choice in the matter, being more structurally car dependent than urban drivers (though it remains possible that this research failed to identify one or more additional factors that are particularly important to rural drivers).

Comparing the 'preference profiles' of the different groups:

• More drivers than non-drivers say convenience, journey time and comfort is important to them, while more non-drivers cite cost and 'my health and fitness'.
• Male and female drivers differed significantly only in that more males cited 'comfort' as a consideration.
• The youngest drivers (18-24) were less concerned about convenience and health and fitness, and more concerned about cost, while fewer of the oldest drivers (aged 65 plus) were concerned about journey time and cost and more of them mentioned health and fitness. This latter may have been more a concern about their fitness to cope with some travel modes, rather than the opportunities for healthy exercise that they afforded.
• Fewer rural drivers mentioned convenience, journey time and the weather as an influence on mode choice.
• More top-income quartile drivers mentioned convenience, journey time and the environment; more bottom-quartile drivers mentioned cost and health and fitness.
• More of those drivers designated currently 'unable' to shift short car journeys to bus mentioned 'My health & fitness'.
• Fewer of those drivers designated 'unwilling' to shift for short journeys mentioned journey time, health and fitness and the environment, while significantly more mentioned comfort.

5.2 Attitudes towards policy 'sticks' and 'carrots'

Those who live in households with access to a car were asked what effect a number of possible 'sticks and carrots' might have on their level of car use. The policy 'sticks' were 'Gradually doubling the cost of petrol over the next ten years' and 'Charging all motorists around 2 each time they enter or drive through a city or town centre at peak times'. The policy 'carrots' were 'Greatly improving the reliability of local public transport' and 'Greatly cutting the cost of long distance rail and coach services'.

Table 13 shows that each of these four potential policy changes has broadly comparable anticipated effects on Scottish car users. Between 41% and 52% of current car users say that the change in policy would 'make no difference' to their level of car use. Between a quarter and a third believe they would use their car 'a little less', around a fifth say they would use their car 'quite a bit less', and between 1 in 20 (5%) and 1 in 12.5 (8%) say it would lead them to give up their car.

Table 13 - Effects of policy sticks and carrots on levels of car use (row %)

Thus half or more (48% - 59%) of current car users say they could be influenced to use their cars less by these policy measures. Table 14 gives for each policy measure the overall proportion that say they would use their car less (a little less, quite a bit less, give up) and also documents the differential influence of the demographic, transport use and attitudinal characteristics of these respondents.

Table 14 - Statistically significant differences in effects of policy sticks and carrots on levels of car use

• There were no statistically significant differences between male and female car users in the extent to which they would reduce their levels of car use in response to the four policy measures.
• On all four policy interventions substantially more of the 18-24 age group anticipated they would reduce their car use. In addition, in the case of congestion charging and cheaper long distance coach and rail fares substantially fewer of current car users aged 65 and above say they would cut their car use.
• Household income made a difference to responses to pull measures - 'carrots' - with more of those from the highest quartile saying they would cut their car use if the reliability of local public transport were greatly improved and if the cost of long distance coach and rail journeys were greatly reduced. However, differences in household income did not make a statistically significant difference to the anticipated impact of push measures - a gradual doubling of petrol price over 10 years and a 2 peak access city-centre fee.
• The percentage of drivers who would use their cars less did not differ with frequency of current car use (whether they use them most days, 2-5 times a week, or once a week or less often) but fewer high mileage drivers (200 miles per week or more) say they would reduce their car use in the face of petrol price rises while more low mileage drivers (below 50 miles per week) said they would.
• More of those living in an accessible urban location or rating their local public transport as good would cut their car use faced with the sticks of petrol price rises and congestion charging.
• More of the able - those who could substitute bus for short car journeys - say they would reduce their level of car use if petrol prices were gradually doubled, with peak time city or town centre congestion charging and if the reliability of local public transport were enhanced.
• More of the willing - those who would not still want to travel by car even if the local public transport was good - would cut their car use under congestion charging and if long distance fares were greatly reduced, and substantial numbers (83%) would do so if the reliability of their local public transport were improved.

« Previous | Contents | Next »