Car less days in the suburbs

Press, 24 April 1980, Page 17

Car less days in the suburbs

By

ERIC BEARDSLEY,

, information officer,

University of Canterbury

The earless day scheme — soon, it is reported, to pass into history — had two long-term benefits. It alerted drivers to the need !to reduce petrol consumption, even if it was l not particularly effective in doing so; and it increased awareness of the . alternative methods of transport available, espe- ' cially the possibility of ’ sharing cars for regular trips to work.

These are the principal conclusions drawn from a survey of the effects of the scheme on drivers in three city suburbs — Merivale, Parklands, and I Avonhead — undertaken j by three senior students in ; the geography department of the University, of ; Canterbury for the Minis- ' try of Energy. The survey, by Jeanette Elliot, lan Fletcher, and Glen Lauder, was designed to identify social changes

caused by the scheme rather than to assess its practical effects in saving petrol. They found that car-sharing was the most significant change, with many of those interviewed

describing it as socially desirable because it contributed to a stronger community feeling. This, they said, had led to a “spillover” effect, with c a r-sharing continuing when it was not required. Travel by bus was rarely considered an alternative to the private car except for regular trips to work. Only 3 per cent of the sample used the bus on their earless day for; all purposes. The figure for Parklands, with the worst bus service, was 5 per cent, while in Merivale,

which has the most regular service, none of the respondents used the bus on their earless day. Shared cars accounted for one in five of all earless day trips. One in four trips was accomplished by a second family or company car, but in Parklands the figure

dropped to 14 cent and in Merivale to 10 per cent. Cycling and walking accounted for. 7 and 6, per cent of trips respectively (in Merivale cycling accounted for 20 per cent of earless day trips) and motor-cycling accounted for 10 per cent of trips from Parklands, but none from the other two suburbs — "perhaps a reflection of the age distribution of the population/’ the students comment.

The use of an ex-

emption sticker accounted for one in eight of all trips (one in five in Merivale). Avonhead respondents did not mention illegal use of a car, but this method of beating the earless day was used for one in 10 of all trips in Parklands and one in 20 in Merivale.

The students distributed their first questionnaire before the earless day scheme began last July; a second was distributed in November; and respondents were subsequently asked to complete a “viewpoint” questionnaire. The suburbs were chosen to provide a range of social status, housing quality, family income, car ownership, employment, consumer services, and public transport. Before the earless days began, 84 per cent of the

sample used a car to travel to work. The same car was used by 34 per cent on the chosen earless days — 29 per cent legally by means of an exemption and 5 per cent illegally. A second car was used by 14 per cent. The use of a shared car rose from 5 to 19 per cent, bus or motorcycle use from 2 to 7 per cent, and cycling from 7 to 12 per cent. Formerly, 88 per cent used a second car, 30 per cent shared a car, cycling rose from 3 to 15 per cent, and walking from 9 to 20 per cent. The earless days scheme had its most significant social impact on what were defined as “personal” trips. Before the scheme, 88 per cent used cars for these trips. Subsequently, 39 per cent used a second car, 27 per cent shared, and 33 per cent postponed the trip. For what were defined as “dependent” trips, principally the transport of children, car owners were

reluctant to change their habits on earless days. Before the .scheme, 85 per cent used' their cars for this purpose and 15 per cent shared. Subsequently, 36 per cent shared, 36 per cent used a second car, 14 per cent used the car illegally, arid 14 per cent postponed-the trip. The results showed some cur Sous differences between the suburbs. Only 8 per cent of Parklands respondents shared cars to work, but .in Merivale the percentage! was 29 and in Avonheadl7. Forty-three per cent of Merivale respondents < had exemptions compared with 31 per cent in Parklands and 22 per cent in Avonhead. In Avonhead, 35 per cent used another car (none in the other two suburbs) while in Parklands 23 per cent used a motor-cycle (none in the other two). Fifteen per cent of Parklands respondents cycled to work, 14 per cent in Merivale, and 9 per cent in Avonhead.

Fifteen per cent of Parklands respondents went to work by bus on their earless day ( 4 per cent in Avonhead and none in Merivale) and none walked to work from any of the suburbs.

Avonhead emerged as the most “law-abiding” suburb. No respondent admitted to using a car illegally to go to work there, but in Parklands the figure was 8 per cent and in Merivale 14 per cent. “The illegal use in these areas is perhaps a reflection of stress which the earless day scheme is placing on these individuals,” the students comment.

Two-thirds of all respondents saw the earless days as unnecessary. Forty-three per cent said they used much the same amount of petrol as before and 41 per cent said that they had saved a small amount. The majority of the latter said the increases in petrol prices and voluntary savings, not

earless days, had caused the reduction. Sixty-nine per cent described earless days as unfair and 68 per cent found them inconvenient.

Asked whether they would use their cars more or less than at present if the earless day scheme was abolished, 71 per cent said they would drive as much as they had recently. Forty-seven per cent wanted the scheme scrapped and 37 per cent wanted it removed for a trial period. Only 2 per cent agreed

that the scheme was a good way of cutting petrol usage, but 48 per cent thought it was a good way of waking people up to the need to save petrol.

Twenty-five per cent said the scheme was morally wrong and an infringement of the right to drive. The students said in their conclusion that most of those interviewed had adopted a philosophical approach to the scheme which was coloured quite strongly by their political orientation. A majority

disliked the scheme be- ’ cause of its injustices — “a critical factor as many people are willing to support a system, even at some personal cost, if they see it as fair and equitable,” they said. “The scheme has been viewed as beneficial in awakening people to the 1 national economic necessi- ' ty of reducing oil con- » sumption, but many felt this role had now been fulfilled and the scheme should now be removed, either for a trial period or. permanently.”