7 Online Survey Findings
7.4 Carfree Possibles
333 respondents, half of the drivers, responded to Question 12 indicating that they would like to live without a car if circumstances changed (only 11% said they would never want to give up their car). Of these, 121 had never lived without a car in the past, so were classified as Other Owners, leaving 212 Carfree Possibles – just under a quarter of the total sample. For 43% of these people, their period of carfree living was relatively short: under a year (Q.14).
Q 13 asked those drivers who would like to give up, what would be necessary for them to give up car ownership. The most frequent responses are shown in Table 7-11.
Q. 13: Changes necessary to live without a car
Improved public transport where I live 59%
Changing circumstances of my family or spouse/partner 45%
Other 31%
Moving to a different place 28%
Table 7-11 Most Frequent Responses to Q.13
The responses were similar for both the Carfree Possibles and the Other Owners. The ‘other’
category responses most commonly described specific family circumstances, or referred to national public transport improvements. One respondent wrote: “I dream of Deutsche Bahn in the
UK”. 19 respondents mentioned issues related to cycling, particularly cycling infrastructure. As one put it:
“improved cycle ways, not a bit of white paint on a pavement which is very dangerous or painted track on the road which disappears whenever the road narrows.”
12 mentioned better availability of car sharing or hiring. Ten referred to, or hinted at inertia, suggesting they could probably give up their cars already. One woman said: “divorce – I can’t get my husband on a bike” and another wrote simply “Growing wings!”
A key objective for the qualitative interviews was to probe the credibility of, and circumstances surrounding the Carfree Possibles’ responses to this question: under what circumstances might the aspiration to give up car ownership realistically be realised? As described in the next chapter, the interviews cast doubt on many of these responses.
The Carfree Possibles in the online survey emerge as a very different group from the Carfree Choosers, generally more similar to the overall sample. They were older than the Carfree Choosers, with a third of them concentrated between 40 and 49, as shown in Figure 7-14:
Figure 7-14 Online Survey Carfree Possibles Age Distribution
The definition of this category would have influenced this to some extent, since they had all acquired, given up and reacquired a car. They were more likely to be living in a family (52%), with
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
17 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 +
% Online Survey - Age Distribution (Q.25)
Census Survey - all Carfree Possibles
(74%) with a corresponding gender split (69% male). Again, compared to the Carfree Choosers, more of them lived in rural areas: 23%, similar to the overall sample.
The Carfree Possibles had a higher income than the Carfree Choosers; 66% of the former reported a household income over £30,000. This was significantly higher than the rest of the sample. The income distribution of the Carfree Possibles, shown in Figure 7-15 was similar that to the Other Owners (not shown).
Figure 7-15 Online Survey Carfree Possibles Income Comparison
The housing tenure of the Carfree Possibles was also similar to the Other Owners, with a significantly higher proportion of owner occupiers than the overall sample:
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
< 10000 10001 -20000
20001 -30000
30001 -40000
40001 -50000
50001-80000
80000 +
% Online Survey - Income Comparisons (Q27)
Survey - all
Carfree Possibles
Figure 7-16 Online Survey Carfree Possibles Tenure
Unlike the Carfree Choosers, the housing types of the Carfree Possibles were fairly similar to the overall sample and the Census data, with more of them in detached or semi-detached houses:
Figure 7-17 Online Survey – Carfree Possible Housing Types 0.0
A third of the Carfree Possibles had more than one car in their household, a significantly lower proportion than the Online Owners (45%):
Figure 7-18 Online Survey – Cars in Car Owners’ Households
In interpreting the responses on travel behaviour, the source of the sample – mostly members of cycling organisations – needs to be borne in mind. The Carfree Possibles, as expected, drove more (19% on most days, 43% occasionally) but cycled almost as much as the Carfree Choosers (62% on most days).
Figure 7-19 compares the regular (daily or weekly) travel modes of the Carfree Possibles and Other Owners. The lower proportion of Carfree Possibles’ driving regularly (57%) and the higher proportion travelling by train (24%) were both significant at the 99% level. The higher proportion cycling (85%) was significant at the 95% level. Most of them regularly walked (79%), few regularly travelled as a car passenger (23%), and fewer regularly travelled by bus (15%). There were no significant differences between the two groups of car owners in these respects.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1 2 or more
% Online Survey - Cars in Household (Q.10)
Other Owners Carfree Possibles
Figure 7-19 Online Survey Regular Travel of Car Owning Groups by Mode
Attitudes to Neighbourhoods and Moving Home
When asked about the advantages of the area where they lived, the responses of the Carfree Possibles nearly always fell between the Carfree Choosers and the rest of the sample. Thus they were less likely than the Carfree Choosers but more likely than the other groups to cite: proximity to a town or city centre, accessible public transport, and close to shops; vice versa for close to countryside, quiet road and available parking. Their most frequent responses are shown in Table 7-12:
Q. 7: Advantages of Current Neighbourhood – Carfree Possibles
Close to city/town centre 58%
Close to the countryside 57%
Accessible public transport 48%
Convenient for work or study 41%
Table 7-12 Most Frequent Responses to Q.7 – Carfree Possibles
The responses of the online Carfree Possibles concerning problems of their neighbourhoods followed the same pattern as the advantages – falling between those of the Carfree Choosers and the others. Their top responses are shown in Table 7-13:
0.0%
% Regular (most weeks) Travel by Mode (Q.9)
Other Owners Carfree Possibles
Q. 8: Problems of Current Neighbourhood – Carfree Possibles
Too much traffic in the immediate area 49%
Distant from family/friends 33%
Poor or inaccessible public transport) Lack of community) 30%
Table 7-13 Most Frequent Responses to Q.8 – Carfree Possibles
A similar pattern can be observed in the Carfree Possibles’ responses to the questions about moving home. Thus, they were less likely than the Carfree Choosers but more likely than the rest of the sample to prefer or consider terraced houses (69%), flats (40%) and to prefer urban living (35%). Conversely, they were more likely than the Carfree Choosers, but less likely than the others to prefer rural living (29%). The main factors influencing their moving choices are shown in Table 7-14:
Q. 22: Influences on moving choice – Carfree Possibles
Well served by public transport 54%
Close to place of work or study 46%
Close to countryside 44%
Minimal traffic in the immediate area 42%
Table 7-14 Most Frequent Responses to Q.22 – Carfree Possibles
Of the 69% of Carfree Possibles who would consider moving home, two thirds stated that they could afford to buy – similar to the rest of the sample and substantially more than the Carfree Choosers.
Attitudes to Carfree Neighbourhoods
The responses to the hypothetical question about carfree neighbourhoods are shown in Table 7-15:
Q. 23: Attitude to living in a carfree neighbourhood
Survey All
Carfree Possibles Be keen to move there even if it meant moving some distance 13% 14%
Consider moving there, if it were somewhere convenient 61% 69%
Possibly consider the idea 20% 12%
Not consider moving there 5% 3%
Don’t know 2% 1%
Table 7-15 Most Frequent Responses to Q.23 – Carfree Possibles
The Carfree Possibles responses were significantly more favourable than those of the rest of the sample (though less so than the Carfree Choosers) consistent with the hypothesis in research question 3. Following the comments about their car ownership, above, this raised the issue of how robust these responses would prove under questioning. This issue will be discussed in Chapter 9.