Policies against car congestion ‘hit low-income motorists hardest’

It also identifies groups of low-income motorists, especially those working unsocial hours or living in remote rural areas, whose employment and quality of life would be severely damaged without a car. Women in low paid work with limited time to make multi-purpose trips – such as getting themselves and other family members to and from work or school –are another group prepared to keep a car, even when it takes more of their income than from other drivers.

The study, by the University of Westminster’s Transport Studies Group, reveals widespread objections to public transport on grounds of cost, even in towns and cities where services are relatively frequent. It also highlights objections to policies intended to increase the cost of car use that are voiced strongly by low-income car owners and non-owners alike.

The research is based on an analysis of national survey data combined with in-depth interviews and focus groups in five contrasting geographical areas. It finds that:

• Motorists among the poorest fifth of the population commit up to 24 per cent of their total expenditure to running their car. The equivalent figure for the next fifth of the population is 18 per cent, falling to 16 per cent for the richest fifth.
• People with low incomes who own cars usually do so because they would not be able to meet their basic lifestyle commitments without them. However, they tend to use them frugally to keep running costs to a minimum.
• Low-income interviewees identified a number of barriers to using public transport. These included the high cost of fares relative to their incomes and the inadequacy of routes for accessing hospitals, colleges, shops and other essential services. Most owners believed their cars cost them less than equivalent travel by bus or train.
• Some people with low incomes, including those in rural areas, maintained that public transport could never be a viable option. Motorists working night shifts or at isolated edge-of-town locations were among those likely to say they would go without other basic amenities rather than give up their car. Many people on low incomes living in rural areas needed cars to carry out most of their daily activities. They even needed a car to get to the nearest Unemployment Office to sign on for welfare benefits.
• There was widespread animosity to pricing policies designed to restrict car use, such as workplace parking charges and congestion charging. People in rural and other car-dependent study areas insisted that their quality of life would be seriously compromised if driving became more expensive.

The report notes the Government’s recent recognition in its agenda for transport that lack of access to a car can reinforce social exclusion for those on low incomes. But it goes on to criticise the suggestion that local authorities should be the only ones to shoulder the task of evaluating the problems in their area and dealing with shortfalls in public transport and other provision.

Dr Karen Lucas, a co-author of the report, said: "Our study suggests that many of the problems associated with poor transport and accessibility for low-income groups are beyond the capacity of local authorities to resolve. Their resources are limited and they lack the powers to affect the delivery of affordable and appropriate public transport services. Moreover, they cannot be expected to unravel the policy conflicts within central government – for example, between the wish to help low-income families in rural areas and the desire to protect the environment by reducing congestion and car emissions"

She added: "Until central and local government are prepared routinely to assess the impact of transport policies on social exclusion – so-called ‘social equity evaluation’ – it is unlikely that the problems of disadvantaged individuals, groups and communities will be understood or addressed."