Car passengers on the UK s roads: An analysis Imogen Martineau, BA (Hons), MSc June 14th 2005
Introduction At a time when congestion is increasing on the UK s roads and reports about global warming are appearing with increasing regularity in the media, we are all looking for ways of improving access whilst reducing congestion and carbon dioxide emissions. This report highlights the role that car passengers could play in helping to achieve some of those aims. It reveals that car-passenger is already the 2 nd most common form of transport if measured in terms of distance travelled and time spent travelling and the third most common mode of transport in terms of trips made. In 2003 alone, more than 30% of all miles travelled in the UK were as a car passenger more than were covered on foot, bike and train combined. In spite of the convenience of being a car-passenger, vehicle occupancy levels are falling and single-occupancy journeys are increasing, along with congestion and carbon dioxide emissions. This is a worrying trend, particularly as it is matched by an upward trend in congestion on our roads. The recommendations of this report suggest that more should be done to encourage, facilitate and reward car-sharing along with other forms of more sustainable transport. Analysis suggests that a doubling in the number of car-passenger trips, assuming the new passengers were previous drivers, could achieve a 56% reduction in trips as a car-driver and a 59% reduction in miles driven. This would also enable the UK to achieve 82% of our target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. The investment required to make this happen is very little. Car-sharing, along with carclubs and other alternatives to single-occupancy car-use, doesn t require any roads to be built or equipment to be developed. All it needs is some promotion so that everyone in the UK understands the personal, social and environmental benefits of responsible travel. The report concludes with some recommendations about how car-sharing might be encouraged. These include: Increasing the average vehicle occupancy for commuting and business trips. Given that these journeys represent 29% of all distance travelled (and 18% of all trips made) an increase in vehicle occupancy levels would have a significant impact congestion and pollution. In addition, these journeys take place at the most congested times of day. Increasing vehicle occupancy levels for commuter trips can be achieved through the Workplace Travel Plan scheme, which provides incentives for employers to look at transport related issues and gives them opportunities to influence the travel behaviour of their staff. It is recommended that planning agreements for all new business developments should include a travel plan with car-sharing as part of it. Car-sharing for commuting and business trips could also be encouraged by increasing the authorised mileage rate for each passenger from 5p. 2
Likewise, there are definite opportunities for increasing the average vehicle occupancy on the school run. Again, these trips take place at peak hours and are associated with a closed community. With School Travel Planners in place across all local authorities it should be possible to promote car-sharing along with other smarter choices such as walking buses, cycling and upgraded school bus services. At present the only barrier to promoting car-sharing within schools is the capital restriction on the School Travel Plan grant, which limits the ability of schools to promote car-sharing and other smarter choices. The conditions of the School Travel Plan Grant should be changed to include funding for information materials and travel websites which enable parents to be matched together to share the journey to school. The Department for Transport should fund and develop a major campaign, highlighting the social, environmental and cost benefits of car-sharing and other Smarter Choices. This would raise awareness of car-sharing, car-clubs and other modes of transport and encourage take up of such schemes. The cost of such a campaign, relative to the benefits, should make it an attractive option. The Department for Transport should provide funding for pilot Park and Share schemes with a view to raising awareness of car-sharing and to encourage it as a mode of transport. If successful, Park and Share schemes could be introduced or integrated with Park and Ride schemes across the UK. Imogen Martineau June 2005 3
Chapter 1: Background Congestion and pollution on the UK s roads are now accepted as an undesirable byproduct of development, and a problem that needs to be addressed urgently. With more trips being done by car and over longer periods, congestion on our roads is increasing. Although the overall number of trips per person is falling, the average trip length is increasing 1 and people are doing more trips by car and less on foot. This is in part because the relative cost of motoring has fallen. The cost of motoring has remained at or below its 1980 level, whilst the cost of buses, coaches and trains has increased in the last 25 years. In addition to increasing congestion, the increase in car-use is leading to increased emissions of greenhouse gases. Transport alone is responsible for 25% of all UK emissions of greenhouse gases, with road transport contributing 90% of these. Increased road traffic is therefore leading to more greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere. There are obvious social and environmental benefits to reducing congestion on the UK s roads. But that still leaves the question, how best to do it? The publication of the Smarter Choices report by the Department for Transport highlighted the role that more sustainable transport options currently play in reducing congestion and pollution. In the report Alistair Darling, Secretary of State for Transport, defines Smarter Choices as including: local programmes to encourage school, workplace and individualised travel planning; improving public transport information and marketing services; setting up web sites for car share schemes and supporting car clubs and encouraging teleworking and teleconferencing. The research report behind the final publication, Smarter Choices: Changing the Way We Travel estimated how much traffic could be cut if a smarter choices programme was developed further over a period of about 10 years. In the high intensity scenario, peak hour urban traffic could be cut by 21 per cent and peak hour non-urban traffic by 14 per cent. Nationally, traffic could be cut by 11 per cent. This report focuses on the role that car-sharing can and does play in achieving Smarter Choices. It looks at the extent to which car-sharing, intentionally or not, is currently taking place in the UK, and the potential that car-sharing has, along with other modes of more sustainable transport, in achieving reductions in congestion and pollution across the UK. 1 Average trip length increased by 12% between 1992/94 and 2002/03 (Source DfT, 2005). 4
Chapter 2: Car passengers in the UK today 2.1 Levels of activity Car passengers are all around us, being given lifts in cars up and down the country, going to school, to work or just to the shops. They are people of all ages, from babies to the elderly, travelling for a range of purposes and to destinations across the UK. Statistics released by the Department of Transport show just how many car-passengers there are in the UK. In terms of the number of trips made, car passenger is the third most common mode of transport in the UK after driving and walking (Figure 1), accounting for 23% of all trips made in 2002/03 - which is more than were made on foot, bicycle, bus or train. In fact the only modes of transport that were more common than car-passenger in 2002/03 were car driving and walking. Figure 1: Trips per person, 2002-2003 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Car/van Walk Car/van Other local Non-local Bicycle Bus in Surface rail Taxi/minicab LT Motorcycle driver passenger bus bus London underground Source: Focus on Personal Travel, DfT, 2005 However, when measured in terms of miles per mode, car passenger is the 2 nd most common mode of transport, accounting for 30% of all miles travelled in 2002/03 - compared to only 5% for surface rail (Figure 2). Only car-drivers covered more miles per annum than car passengers. Figure 2: Miles per mode of transport, 2002-2003 3500 3000 2500 2000 Miles 1500 1000 500 0 Car only driver Car only passenger Surface rail Other local bus Van/lorry driver Walk Private hire bus Other public Non-local bus Van/lorry passenger LT underground Taxi/minicab Bus in London Motorcycle Bicycle Other private vehicles Mode of transport Source: Focus on Personal Travel, DfT, 2005 5
In terms of time, also, car passenger comes 2 nd. On average, we spent 23% of our total time travelling in 2002/03 as a car passenger more than all the hours spent on buses and trains combined (Figure 3). Figure 3: Time spent travelling by mode, 2002-2003 160 140 120 100 Hours 80 60 40 20 0 Car/van driver Car/van passenger Walk Other local bus Surface rail Bus in London Bicycle LT underground Taxi/minicab Non-local bus Other public Motorcycle Mode of transport Source: Focus on Personal Travel, DfT, 2005 Thus we can see that car passenger is the 2 nd most common mode of transport if measured in terms of time and distance, and the 3 rd mode common when measured in number of trips. 6
2.2 Car passengers: trip purpose The likelihood of getting a lift varies considerably according to the purpose of the journey being made. Car-sharing is most likely to occur on leisure trips, with car passenger representing 43% of the distance travelled for leisure purposes. Figure 4: Trips as car passenger by purpose 350 300 250 200 Trips 150 Car passenger All modes 100 50 0 Leisure/other Other escort Shopping Education Commuting Trip purpose Source: Focus on Personal Travel, DfT, 2005 When measured in relation to the total number of leisure trips made, 30% of all leisure trips were made as a car-passenger (Figure 4). This is because people often undertake the journey to leisure activities in groups and travel with friends or family. As a consequence, the average car occupancy for such trips is around 2.2 people per car. Likewise, education trips usually have at least two people in the car. This will normally include at least one adult and one child. Figure 5: Distance travelled per car passenger per year by purpose 3000 2500 2000 Distance 1500 Car passenger All modes 1000 500 0 Leisure/other Other escort Shopping Education Commuting Purpose Source: Focus on Personal Travel, DfT, 2005 7
Conversely, the majority of people who drive to work do so alone, which means that the average car occupancy for commuting trips is only 1.2 people per car. Business trips have the same car occupancy rate 1.2 people per car. This suggests that these journeys offer opportunities for increased vehicle occupancy levels, particularly along popular commuter routes. 8
2.3 Car passengers: personal profiles Available data enables us to determine the gender and age of car-passengers and the evidence reveals that car-passengers are more likely to be young and female (Figure 6). Car passenger is the most common mode of transport for under 17s, which reflects the number of children and young people who depend on their family to get them places. Across all age groups, car passengers are more likely to be female. In fact passenger is the most common form of transport for both younger and older women i.e. those under 20 and over 60 years old. Figure 6: Trips per car passenger per year by age and gender 60 50 40 % of all trips 30 Male car passengers Female car passengers 20 10 0 All ages <17 17-20 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ Age Source: Focus on Personal Travel, DfT, 2005 This suggests that car-sharing plays an important role for groups who might otherwise find it difficult to access transport either because of cost barriers or for more practical reasons. The young and elderly are often dependent on others to get where they want, and car-sharing is both a cheap and convenient means of transport and can therefore be seen as central to the transport mix required to address social exclusion. 9
2.4 Vehicle occupancy levels and congestion The previous sections have shown just how common car-sharing is as a form of transport, and the types of people who are most likely to car share and the purposes for which they re more likely to get lifts. However, as car ownership increases, the average number of occupants on trips by car is falling (Figure 7). In 1985/86 the average number of occupants was 1.64 per vehicle trip. By 2002/03 this figure had fallen to 1.59 per vehicle trip. Meanwhile the percent of vehicle trips with a single occupant increased from 58% in 1985/86 to 61%. Figure 7: Average Vehicle Occupancy over time 1.65 1.64 1.63 Average occupancy 1.62 1.61 1.6 1.59 1.58 1.57 1.56 1985/1986 1989/1991 1992/1994 1995/1997 1998/2000 2002/2003 Time period Source: DfT Focus on Personal Travel 2005 The evidence shows that the decline in vehicle occupancy levels has been mirrored by an increase in traffic (Figure 8). Figure 8: Increase in traffic over time (billion kilometres for motor vehicles) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1985/86 1989/91 1992/94 1995/97 1998/2000 2002/03 Year Source: Dft, 2005 10
Table 1: Proportion of car trips with a single occupant: 1985/86 58% 2002/03 61% Source: DfT, Focus on Personal Travel, 2005 If vehicle occupancy levels continue to fall and more car passengers decided to drive their own cars, the number of miles driven on our roads would increase dramatically. If just half of the UK s current car passengers chose to drive, congestion would increase by 30%. 11
Chapter 3: Car passengers: the future 3.1 Background The publication of Smarter Choices 2 by the Department for Transport in 2004 highlighted the potential that more sustainable transport options hold in combating congestion and pollution in the UK. In that document Smarter Choices were defined as: New techniques for influencing people s travel behaviour towards more sustainable options, such as walking, cycling, travelling by public transport and car sharing. They are sometimes called soft measures. Smarter Choices, 2004 Increased car-sharing, along with other soft measures could achieve significant reductions in congestion, pollution and travel costs. In this section we ll look at barriers to car-sharing and the benefits that would come about if car-sharing increased as part of a package of measures. 3.2 Barriers to car-sharing As we ve seen, car sharing is already a much used form of transport, particularly for leisure trips with the young and elderly. The benefits of car-sharing for both the individual and society are obvious: 1. Reduced travel costs 3 2. Improved access particularly in areas where public transport is limited 3. Reduced congestion 4. Reduced pollution 5. Reduced carbon dioxide emissions So what are the reasons that people don t car-share more? The most obvious reason is the lack of awareness of organised car-sharing as a means of transport. A huge number of people in the UK aren t aware of the services that are available to facilitate car-sharing, let alone the financial, social and environmental benefits associated with car-sharing. Once made aware of car-sharing and how it can be organised, most people become interested and request further information about how they can get involved. Some others, however, raise objections to organised car-sharing and why it wouldn t work for them. The most common of these are outlined below, with explanations as to why they are only barriers of perception, not reality. Further examples can be found in Appendix A of Making Car Sharing and Car Clubs Work A Good Practice Guide (DfT, 2005). Any promotion of car-sharing should focus on over-coming people s preconceptions of carsharing, so that these barriers can be nullified. 2 Smarter Choices, Department for Transport, 2004 3 The average car-passenger trip costs just 10p per mile. The average car driver can save 348.50 per annum by giving just one person a lift. By giving a lift to two people this can increase to 697.00 per annum
1. I don t know anyone going my way. This is true for a lot of people. Most people tend to travel with friends and family both because a) they re know these people and b) because they re often going to the same place. However internet matching services now make it easy to find other people who are going to the same place. These services are free to use, and enable you to find the closest possible match to your journey requirements. 2. What about security? It s not safe. Many employers are now setting up car-sharing schemes to enable their staff to share journeys into work. This means you re not sharing with a stranger. You re sharing with a colleague. 3. I don t want to give lifts in my car. It s my personal space. Obviously car-sharing isn t for everyone, but many people find they enjoy having some company in the car, not to mention the petrol money they get from the passenger(s). Often people who are reluctant to car-share initially become keen advocates once they ve given it a go. 3.3 Car-sharing: potential impact on congestion Car sharing has the potential to reduce congestion dramatically. Our research suggests that a doubling in the number of car-passengers, assuming the new passengers were previous drivers, could achieve a 56% reduction in trips as a car-driver and a 59% reduction in miles driven by car and van. 3.4 Potential impact on carbon dioxide emissions In addition to reducing congestion, car-sharing also has the potential to make significant savings in carbon dioxide emissions. A doubling in car-passenger trips, assuming the passengers were previous car drivers, could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 35 million tonnes, the same amount as would be absorbed by 11,822,828,160 trees a year or an area of trees the size of the UK, France and Germany combined in a year 4. The UK government has made a commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% of 1990 levels by 2010. In 1990 the UK emitted 212 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. We therefore need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 42.4 million tonnes by 2010 5. Doubling the number of car-passenger miles could achieve 82% of that target. 4 1,989 miles (3182.4 km) travelled per person per year as a car passenger. Assuming 187g of carbon dioxide per kilometre, means 595kg per year. Population was 59.6 million in 2003. That means 35,468,484 tonnes of carbon dioxide, or the same amount as would be absorbed by 11,822,828,160 trees in one year. Assume trees are planted at 100 trees per hectare (one every 10 metres). That s 118,228,281 hectares or (at 100 hectares = 1 square km) 1,182,282 square km of trees the same area as the UK, France and Germany combined. 5 Defra, 2005 13
Chapter 4: Conclusion and Recommendations This report has highlighted the valuable contribution that car-passengers, willingly or not, make every day to the UK s transport system. The report has also highlighted the potential that car-sharing has for reducing both congestion and carbon dioxide emissions. There are definite opportunities for increasing the average vehicle occupancy for commuting and business trips. Given that these journeys represent 29% of all distance travelled (and 18% of all trips made) an increase in vehicle occupancy levels would have a significant impact congestion and pollution. In addition, these journeys take place at the most congested times of day. Increasing vehicle occupancy levels for commuter trips can be achieved through the Workplace Travel Plan scheme, which provides incentives for employers to look at transport related issues and gives them opportunities to influence the travel behaviour of their staff. It is recommended that planning agreements for all new business developments should include a travel plan with car-sharing as part of it. Car-sharing for commuting and business trips could also be encouraged by increasing the authorised mileage rate for each passenger from 5p. Likewise, there are definite opportunities for increasing the average vehicle occupancy on the school run. Again, these trips take place at peak hours and are associated with a closed community. With School Travel Planners in place across all local authorities it should be possible to promote car-sharing along with other smarter choices such as walking buses, cycling and upgraded school bus services. At present the only barrier to promoting car-sharing within schools is the capital restriction on the School Travel Plan grant, which limits the ability of schools to promote car-sharing and other smarter choices. The conditions of the School Travel Plan Grant should be changed to include funding for information materials and travel websites which enable parents to be matched together to share the journey to school. The Department for Transport should fund and develop a major campaign, highlighting the social, environmental and cost benefits of car-sharing and other Smarter Choices. This would raise awareness of car-sharing, car-clubs and other modes of transport and encourage take up of such schemes. The cost of such a campaign, relative to the benefits, should make it an attractive option. The Department for Transport should provide funding for pilot Park and Share schemes with a view to raising awareness of car-sharing and to encourage it as a mode of transport. If successful, Park and Share schemes could be introduced or integrated with Park and Ride schemes across the UK. 14