The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter Two Background and previous research

Introduction

2.1. In this chapter we consider the background to the topic of long distance commuting and summarise previous relevant research.

Background

2.2. The Scottish Executive has a long term objective to reduce road traffic volumes, reduce traffic congestion and promote travel by bus and rail. Influencing the behaviour of long distance commuting is seen as a potentially efficient way of achieving some or all of these aims. In addition, understanding the factors which appear to influence long distance commuters will provide insights into areas where commuting patterns could change over time and/or be influenced by Government policy or investment.

2.3. The disadvantages of long distance commuting include monetary costs of travel (fuel, vehicle maintenance, fares etc) and the time wasted travelling to/from work). However, the positive effects for families and communities are also important. Commuting provides economic links between urban centres and surrounding areas and enables workers to take advantage of low-density housing, good schools and/or low crime rates often found in rural and suburban communities. Long distance commuting enables urban workers to continue to live in rural areas close to family and community and allows families with more than one working adult to access employment in multiple locations. Temporary long distance commuting can also arise when the location of individual's employment changes.

2.4. The literature associated with the various aspects of long distance commuting is now considered under the following headings:

• definitions
• trends in long distance commuting
• the nature of long distance commuting
• residential and workplace locations
• mode choice and travel time
• gender aspects to long distance commuting
• travel to/from school, and
• policy aspects

Definitions

2.5. Throughout this document, long distance commuting is taken to mean a trip of at least 15 kilometres from the traveller's home to their regular place of work.

2.6. Where possible, the 2001 Census definitions have been used to sub-divide 'commuters' into workers travelling to their place of work and those in full-time education whose 'commute' is in fact a trip to their relevant educational establishment. Further definitions of commuting are described below:

Out-commuter - a person travelling from a given geographic area to their place of work; and

In-commuter - a person travelling from their place of residence to employment in a given geographic area.

2.7. The AM Peak hour will generally be taken to mean 0800-0900 on a typical week-day and the term AM Peak Period will be used to describe the three hour week-day period between 0700 and 1000 on a typical week-day.

2.8. The PM Peak hour will generally be taken to mean 1700-1800 on a typical week-day and the term PM Peak Period will be used to describe the three hour week-day period between 1600 and 1900 on a typical week-day.

Trends in long distance commuting (Great Britain)

2.9. The National Travel Survey (Department for Transport 2005) defines a long distance trip as a trip of 50 miles (80km) or more. As may be seen from Table 2.1, 12% of all trips of 50 miles (80km) or more in Great Britain are commuting trips. This proportion rises to 18% for trip lengths between 50 (80km) and 75 miles (121km).

Table 2.1: Long distance trips within GB by length and purpose: 2002-2004 average (Source National Travel Survey: 2004, Transport Statistics)

¹ Education, shopping, personal business and escorted

2.10. The number of long distance commuters in Britain increased by approximately a third between 1991 and 2001 (as recorded in the Census) and the average trip length for most journey purposes (including trips to work and travel to education) has been rising steadily over time.

2.11. The National Travel Survey is a key source in examining long distance commuting trends. The 2004 National Travel Survey (Department for Transport 2005) shows changes in personal travel over the previous decade and includes trends in distance, number of trips and time spent in travelling.

2.12. Between 1992/1994 and 2004, commuting trip rates decreased by 7%, from 158 trips per person per year to 149 trips per person per year. Since 1992/1994, there has been an increase of 15% in the number of escorted educational trips (trips solely to take another person whose trip is educational) and a 45% increase in annual miles per person, averaged for all journey purposes. Over this period the average commuting trip length increased by 13%, educational trips increased by 8% and escorted educational trips by 25%.

2.13. National Travel Survey (Scotland) data suggests that the average length of a Scottish travel to work trip has increased from about 5.4 miles (8.7km) in the mid-1980's, to around eight miles (13km) by the year 2000. The average Scottish educational trip-lengths have grown from about 1.6 miles (2.8km), to about three miles (5km) over the same period.

The nature of long distance commuting

2.14. Using the 1991 English Census data, Turner et al, (1999) consider explanatory variables influencing the 'odds' of commuting further than 30km. Their findings are summarised in Table 2.2 below:

Table 2.2: Odds of being a long distance commuter (30+km) (source Turner et al 1999)

2.15. Benito and Oswald (2000) used information from the British Household Panel Survey to reach a number of conclusions relating to long distance commuting. Their findings suggest the following:

• employees in the south east of England commute longer than those elsewhere
• London has an average one-way commute of 38 minutes - this figure is significantly higher than the rest of the south east (33 minutes), and the rest of the UK (21 minutes)
• people with university degrees spend 50% more time travelling to work than those with the lowest educational qualifications
• males spend a little longer commuting to work than females
• full-time workers spend significantly more time commuting to work than part-time employees (the average difference in one-way journey time is seven minutes)
• home owners commute on average about four minutes longer than non-homeowners

2.16. They found no significant variation in commuting distance by either marital status or whether people work in a public or private sector. Benito and Oswald (2000) also consider trade offs between 'niceness of area', salary and commuting time. Those with higher incomes commute for longer, but their study suggests this is a consequence of their desire to live in a nice area.

2.17. Based on the Scottish Household Travel Diary data, Laird (2006) identifies (generalised) commuting costs as the most important determinant of commuting distance, followed by household car availability. The Laird study also identified the importance of annual income (elasticity of commuting distance to annual income is 0.494). Further factors found to be associated with longer mean commutes were high land rents, high housing costs, family households and rural areas.

Residential and workplace locations

General

2.18. The decision to change work or residence location often results in a decision to change commuting distance. Laird (2006) suggests that an individual would be more likely to move house if increases in commuting distance were compensated for by a change in residential quality (eg reduced housing costs or improved lifestyle for the household). Similarly, if commuting distance is increased as a consequence of job change, Laird suggests that this would be associated with improved job satisfaction and/or salary (current and future), as this would compensate for the longer commute.

2.19. Laird (2006) developed an economic model to help explain commuting distance in terms of the factors combining to influence choice of workplace location and residential location. His model is summarised in Table 2.3 below:

Table 2.3: Factors influencing commuting distance (adapted from Laird 2005)

2.20. In the United States, Clark et al (2003) looked at commuting distance and residential change. The study used the Puget Sound Transportation Panel (1989 to 1997) to calculate changes in work and time spent commuting for one-worker and two-worker households. They reached the following conclusions:

After a change in residence:

• most households (80%) have about the same or shorter commute
• women are more likely than men to decrease their commute distance

After a change in both residence and employment:

• most one-worker households have about the same or shorter commute
• two-worker households tended to have increased commuter distances (45% increased their commuting distance by more than four miles (6.4km))
• women in two-worker households tended to increase their commutes

2.21. Waches et al (1993) studied 30,000 employees at five sites of a large employer over six years. Most of the workers had relatively short commutes, but those that changed house tended to have longer commutes subsequently. The study also found that choice of residential location depended not only on commute distance, but also on quality of schools, perceived safety and quality of the area.

2.22. Rouwendal and Reitveld (1994) studied commuting patterns of low-income households (Dutch Housing Demand Survey 1985 and 1988). Their research concluded that:

• a change of employer resulted in longer commuting distances for all households except for one-person households whose commuting distances shortened on average
• a change of residence resulted in increasing commuting distances for one-worker households, while for heads of households with a partner, average commuting distances became shorter
• a change of both residence and employer resulted in longer commuting distances on average

2.23. Dargay and Hanly (2003), using the British Household Panel Survey, found that moving home and changes in workplace location have substantial effects on commuting travel time. They found that changing job alone has a greater impact on travel time than moving house on its own. The authors noted the following for participants who changed both home and employment location:

• 80% increase or reduce travel time by five minutes or more
• one-worker households: both men and women reduce travel times
• two-worker households: men are more likely than women to increase travel times

2.24. Dargay and Hanly (2003) further found that both men and women in one and two-worker households who moved house but did not change employment location, are more likely to increase travel time than reduce it.

Factors affecting residential location

2.25. The literature associated with reasons for changing residential location is now considered under the following themes:

• general reasons for moving home
• labour market forces
• rural versus urban area
• public transport access

General reasons for moving home location

2.26. Table 2.4 shows the reasons given for moving home identified from the British Household Panel Survey. Housing (45%) was the most frequently cited reason for moving. The decision to move to a better area (18%) and partnership (16%) were also frequently stated. Only around 13% of all residence changes were attributed to job related factors. The SAs (1999) report, 'Transport and the Economy', reviewed the links between labour and housing markets and concluded that job change is not a primary determinant of relocation. A small number of BHPS participants cited their reason for moving was to decrease their commute distance (2% 'Nearer work, same employer').

Table 2.4: Reasons for moving house ( BHPS Great Britain 1991 to 2000) Source Dixon (2003)

* The percentages above sum to more than 100 because more than one reason for moving could be given in the survey.

2.27. 'Commuting Trends' ( MVA et al, 2003) suggests changes in household composition are a major reason for households making/reviewing their location. Table 2.5 details the factors affecting residential location and the main drivers and constraints.

Table 2.5: Factors affecting residential location (Source 'Commuting Trends' MVA et al, 2003, page 23)

2.28. Derek Halden Consultancy (2002) suggests that changes in travel behaviour can be categorised into four categories: social, economic, planning and demographic. The change in the nature of long distance commuting can be considered under these categories:

• Social - Cultural trends. For example, people may have become accustomed to looking for work/facilities further from home
• Economic - Changes in disposable income, car ownership and lack of flexibility in housing markets. People are making long-term location choices in order to access a wide range of jobs and services
• Planning - Growth in car-dependent housing and business locations. Although Scottish planning policy is changing, the location of developments often still encourages car dependence
• Demographic - Changes in migration patterns with a trend for people to move out of larger towns and cities

2.29. An analysis of the focus group information obtained from the Central Scotland Transport Corridors Study ( MVA 2001) suggested that the following were associated with households making/reviewing their residential location:

• people prefer to live in an environment of their choice, and in the catchment area of schools they have chosen for their children
• increasingly, families do not necessarily relocate nearer to the workplace of the main worker
• jobs are less secure and people are less willing to move simply to reduce the cost and inconvenience of getting to any one job
• jobs have become increasingly specialized, making them harder to fill with local people

Residential location and labour market factors

2.30. 'Commuting Trends' ( MVA et al, 2003) suggests that there is an increasing tendency for households to choose a residential location with sufficient access to jobs and then commute whatever distance is necessary from that location. Table 2.6 highlights the main factors affecting work and workplace location choices.

Table 2.6: Factors affecting work/workplace choice (Source 'Commuting Trends' MVA et al, 2003, page 23)

2.31. As noted above, increases in commuting distances are associated with the increasing openness of the labour market. A growing proportion of 'environment and amenity'-related moves can be made without changing job ( MVA et al 2003). The research suggests that there is a 50% chance of individuals deciding to commute, at least in the short term, rather than relocate, if their new job was within 85km of their current home. This proportion rose to 90% if the new job was within 50km.

2.32. Clark and Withers (1999) used the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (1988 to 1993) to investigate the significance of changing employment in causing changes in residential location. The authors reached the following conclusions:

• a household in which there was a job change were 2.4 times more likely to change residence than households with no job changes
• for households with married couples, one-worker households were three times more likely to change residence following a job change compared to two-worker households
• home owners are much less likely to change residence than those renting

2.33. The 'Commuting Trends' report ( MVA et al, 2003) suggests that there are factors which are currently altering the relationship between job location and home location. These are:

• more dual-worker households with the increase in the proportion of working women, especially working wives/partners
• the increasing proportion of women pursuing a career rather than simply taking relatively casual employment
• employment is less likely to be seen as permanent - there has been an increase in the rate of moves between jobs, as 'permanent' jobs do not last as long. There is also an increase in the use of contract staff
• there is a growth in the numbers of people who are either wholly self-employed or have a portfolio employment rather than a single job

2.34. Green and Owen (2006) found that the greater the number of jobs in a local area, the shorter the median distance travelled. They investigated the median distance travelled to work using 2001 Census Data for England and Wales and found that the greater number of jobs per person, the shorter the distance travelled. In local labour markets characterised by relatively high unemployment rates, average commuting distances are longer, especially for those working in elementary occupations. A regression model indicated that the number of jobs in the local area and car ownership were the most important influences on distance travelled.

Residential location and 'rural versus urban'

2.35. Scottish Executive (2005) presents statistics from Scotland's population Census 2001 for urban and rural Scotland. The study provides details of distances travelled by commuters by geographic area:

• those who live in accessible areas (small towns and rural) have higher percentages of commuters travelling more than 5km
• those who live in remote small towns have low percentages of commuters travelling more than 2km
• over 7% of commuters from remote small towns and 9% of those from remote rural areas travel more than 40km to get to their place of work

2.36. A study of attitudes towards the countryside undertaken by the Countryside Commission in (1997), based upon 1018 interviews across urban and rural Britain, sought to identify peoples' preferred residential location. Consideration was given to the preferences between living in city centres, suburbs, town or countryside/villages. Across all four categories, the countryside emerges as the preferred location for the majority of respondents (eg for 'inner city dweller' only 21% see the inner city as their preferred location, while 51% would rather live in the countryside).

2.37. Buller et al (2003) suggested that the countryside has, for an increasing proportion of the population, become the chosen place to live. They attribute this to a lifestyle choice driven by house price differentials, residential amenity, environmental quality and housing size rather than the traditional urban location necessities of proximity to work, shops, schools and services.

2.38. Turner et al 1999 conclude that instead of migrating towards places with better employment opportunities, moves into rural England are often stimulated by lifestyle factors. Employment opportunities may be less relevant in these areas and many of these moves are not in accordance with the purely economic arguments, not least because they can result in increased commuting distances.

2.39. Furthermore, Turner et al (1999) suggest that 'in-migrants' who move to more peripheral rural areas, are quite likely to retain work links and leisure links with urban centres. These migrants have chosen the extra travel burden over the negative externalities associated with urban living. The result is longer commuting journeys by car. As a consequence, Turner et al (1999) indicate the importance of considering the relationship between travel behaviour and urban form (especially urban density and size).

Residential location and public transport access

2.40. In considering residential location, research suggests the importance placed on public transport accessibility, especially rail. Gibbon and Machie (2003) noted that for a home-buying commuter, the benefits of better rail access include a direct saving on travel times and changes in the distribution of job types and wages that are available. The authors suggest that residential property prices will reflect all the benefits and costs to commuters that a location offers in terms of proximity to railway stations, and the level of service that the station offers. The study, based in the London area, on distance to rail station effects and house price suggests that households place significant value on rail access. For example, a 1km reduction in distance to access points to the London Underground and Docklands Light Railway adds around 1.5% to the house price of local dwellings.

Mode choice and travel time

2.41. There is a considerable volume of literature available relating to commuting mode choice. Previous research generally indicates that commuters with a car available and cheap abundant parking at, or close to their place of work, will generally choose the car over public transport (or other modes). Rail mode share increases for long distance commuting trips where the rail journey is significantly quicker than the car alternative.

2.42. The Scottish Executive's statistical bulletin (2005b) considers variations in percentage mode share for increasing distances between work and home. The findings can be summarised as follows:

• car driver commuter mode share increases with distance
• rail mode share tends to increase with distance
• car passenger mode share decreases with distance
• bus commuting mode share peaks in the 3 to 5km distance band, then falls as distance rises

2.43. MVA et al (2003) summarise the factors affecting commuting mode choice in Table 2.7 below:

Table 2.7: Factors affecting commuting mode choice (Source 'Commuting Trends' MVA et al, 2003, page 18)

2.44. Table 2.8 details, mode and distance to work (Scottish Census data 2001). Thirty percent of all rail commuters travel further than 20km (Scottish Census data 2001). Lower proportions are found for car commuters (14%) and bus commuters (7%). Almost three quarters (73%) of all trips over 20km are by car, 10% are by bus and 9% are by train.

Table 2.8: Mode and distance to work 2001 Scottish Census (Source: www.scrol.gov.uk)

*The distance travelled is a calculation of the straight line between the postcode of place of residence and postcode of workplace.

2.45. Dargay and Hanly (2003) considered comparisons to initial year travel times from the British Panel Survey ( BPS). The study found that those with short commutes are more likely to increase travel time than reduce it, while the opposite is the case for those with long commutes. Those with low travel time (less than 10 minutes) and those with high travel time (grater than 26 minutes) are less likely to increase travel time than those with travel time between these times (ie commutes of 10 to 26 minutes are most likely to increase travel time).

2.46. Dargay and Hanly (2003) noted that changes in mode and travel time are strongly related to the mode used in the initial year of the British Panel Survey. Users of all other modes are far more likely to change mode than car drivers. Of these, car passengers, motorcyclists and cyclists are most likely to change mode and rail and tube users and those who walk, are least likely to change mode. Rail, bus users, cyclists and walkers who switch mode are most likely to reduce travel time, whereas car users (drivers and passengers), tube users and motorcyclists are least likely to reduce travel time. The majority of those who change mode switch to car which generally results in shorter travel time.

2.47. Dargay and Hanly (2003) used the British Household Panel Survey to examine changes in commuting mode and house and employment location changes and the inter-relationships between the two. They reached the following conclusions:

• 45% of individuals who both moved house and changed employer also changed commuting mode in the same two consecutive years, compared to only 14% who moved neither house nor job
• more women (49%) than men (41%) switch mode when they move house and job
• 69% of individuals who change mode also change travel time, while only 45% of those who do not switch mode change travel time
• over 60% of public transport commuters who switch to car, reduce travel time, while less than 20% increase it
• about 25% of households that either move house or change job, change car ownership. 40% of those that move house and change job change car ownership the majority increasing the number of cars owned

2.48. Findings from 'Household Transport in 2004' (Scottish Executive 2005), using 2004 SHS data, indicate that 7.9% of those sampled changed their means of travel to work in the previous year. The main reasons being 'changed job' (3.0%) and 'moved house' (1.3%).

Gender aspects to long distance commuting

2.49. Analysis of the 2001 Scottish Census data confirms that on average, females commute shorter distances to work. For example 55% of females and 40% of males travel less than 10km to work. 72% of females and 56% of males travel less than 20km to work (see Table 2.9).

Table 2.9: Sex and distance travelled to work 2001 Scottish Census (Source: www.scrol.gov.uk)

* Based on the crow-fly distance between the postcodes of the place of residence and the workplace

2.50. Research suggests that labour market differences may be critical in explaining the tendency of women to commute shorter distances then men. MacDonald (1999) reviewed research on the link between women's commuting and labour force participation which shows the differences in men's and women's commuting can often be explained by lower wages for women and 'household responsibility'.

2.51. Madden (1981) suggests that if women had the same jobs, hours and wages as their male counterparts, their commute would be the same or longer. Madden concludes that while sex differences in job tenure, work hours, and wages are in themselves sufficient to fully account for observed sex differences in workplace-residence separation, sex differences in household 'roles' are of even greater importance in influencing women choosing to work 'closer to home'.

2.52. Chapple and Weinberger's (1994) study of San Francisco commuting found that men and women who have sole responsibility for their household's income display no differences in travel time, despite the lower overall incomes for women. Moreover, the travel times for these men and women are less than those of men and women who share the responsibility for household income. This suggests that full responsibility for household earnings has more effect on travel time than actual earnings and gender.

2.53. Laird (2006) also suggests that once variables such as income and car availability are taken into account, there is not a significant gender difference in commuting distances. His analysis also explored the impact of children (by age) on the behaviour of both men and women, but did not identify any significant impact of this variable on commuting distance.

Travel to/from school

2.54. Other studies have considered the range of influences in education-related trip lengths. The National Travel Survey indicates that the average trip length to school for children aged 5 to 10 increased from 1.2 to 1.7 miles (1.9 to 2.7km) between 1992/1994 and 2004, and for pupils aged 11 to 16 remained at about 3 miles. It also shows that the average length of school journey distance for children aged 5 to 10 rose by 18% from 1.1 miles in 1985/86 to 1.3 miles (1.8km to 2.1km) in 1995/97 while for 11 to 16 years olds, they increased by 35% from 2.3 miles to 3.1 miles (3.7km to 3.1km) in 1995/97).

2.55. A GB-based study (Steer Davies Gleave 2001) revealed that in 9 out of 27 schools studied, the distance travelled to school increased between 1985/86 and 1995/97. This is less than the increases which were expected from the analysis of National Travel Survey. In addition, the study showed that selective and denominational schools are generally associated with longer than average commuting.

2.56. The Steer Davies Gleave (2001) study also showed that the factors leading to an increase in school distance travelled were:

• economic (disposable income, car ownership especially second car ownership, women employment, lack of flexibility in housing market)
• planning (growth in car-dependant housing and business locations)
• demographic (migration)
• organisational (closures of schools in rural areas, children with special educational needs, school admission policies, oversubscribed schools and high levels of public transport accessibility
• social/cultural (parental choice - school location, school performance and childcare requirements)

Policy aspects

Planning guidance

2.57. Planning guidance significantly changed in the early 1990s. PPG13 was published by the Department of the Environment in 1994 and was updated in 2001. The Scottish equivalent is Scottish planning policy is ( SPP17). (Scottish Executive (2005c). The planning guidance aims to integrate land-use planning and transport planning (as well as integration with environment, health and economic policies). The government feels that land-use planning can contribute to the broad policy objectives for integrated transport and land-use planning through:

• The interaction of accessibility, transport and the development strategy should be considered early in the planning process. Land allocations should take account of transport opportunities and impacts alongside consideration of economic competitiveness, social justice, environmental quality and design objectives as set out in the National Planning Framework and SPP1 The Planning System.
• Development plans should be co-ordinated with Regional and Local Transport Strategies, relate the settlement strategy to the capacity of the strategic transport network, and identify where economic growth or regeneration requires additional transport infrastructure. Councils should encourage ongoing stakeholder involvement particularly in respect of new rail and tramway schemes and emerging air transport policy. Development patterns should reduce the need to use strategic routes for short local journeys.
• Land allocations and regeneration projects should be related to transport opportunities and constraints. Locating new development to maximise sustainable transport modes while constraining car parking will help to reduce dependence on car travel. Local planning should prioritise action on walking, cycling, public transport and motorised modes, plan for those whose mobility is impaired and deal with the needs of freight.
• Assessing development proposals involves getting location policy right; having a set of maximum parking standards; using Transport Assessment methodology; and using travel plans to promote sustainable transport to end users of developments. Developers must be prepared to mitigate impacts through contributing to necessary works.
• Development likely to affect trunk and other strategic roads should be managed so as not to adversely impact on the safe and efficient flow of strategic traffic. New motorway or trunk road junctions will only be considered exceptionally and will require significant developer funding.
• Roadside service facilities are a special case of development affecting strategic routes. In general the comfort and safety of drivers should be accommodated through provision of opportunities to stop and rest, with additional facilities in appropriate locations from toilets through to full service area provision. Their location should take account of land use, environmental, economic and transport objectives.

2.58. Nisbet and Duncan, (2000) consider planning policy and high density developments. Access to jobs and facilities is a prime consideration, but there is an onus on planning authorities to reduce the demands for travel, especially the reliance on private cars. This implies that land close to stations and interchanges should have the highest density of development, and possibly lower levels of provision for car parking. In many cities and towns there are 'brownfield' sites where the original development is no longer appropriate (eg may have been used for heavy industry/warehousing). The preference is to re-use 'brownfield' sites, avoiding the use of farm land, as this will help regenerate the urban area and minimise the demand for travel.

UK government policy

2.59. The Transport White Paper: A New Deal for Transport (1998) emphasised the need for an integrated transport policy, and focused on the need for a higher priority for walking, cycling and public transport, improved facilities for people to make connections, and better information for passengers.

2.60. Improvements to rail services were also suggested in the White Paper, including improved interchanges and connections between rail services and between rail and other means of transport, including walking and cycling, simplified fares and better marketing, including more through-ticketing and travel cards.

Scottish Executive policy

2.61. In the 2004 Transport White Paper: 'Scotland's Transport Future', the Scottish Executive recognised that traffic growth has major economic, environmental and social costs, including longer journey times for people and products, reduced air quality, road accidents, impacts on health and contribution to climate change. Traffic congestion also has huge costs for business and communities.

2.62. The 2004 Transport White Paper also acknowledged that there is 'significant room for improvement' in public transport in Scotland and that reliability, frequency and quality are crucial to encouraging more people to use public transport. Scottish Executive initiatives aimed at improving public transport include improving infrastructure, safety and integration of public transport.

« Previous | Contents | Next »