You don't fix poverty by making the poorest pay more
This post began as a twitter response but it was clear that it was just better to write a short piece, than a number of tweets.
The tweet exchange was broadly about why increasing fuel duty harms the poorest and when done to encourage drivers to switch to electric vehicles, sees wealthier drivers most likely to switch and the less well off, paying more on one of their highest vehicle outgoings.
Firstly, some data. For the 58 million of us not living in London, 77% of us commute to work by car. Driving is most popular in our rural communities, where 6% of the 11million population and 14% in rural towns/fringes have no access to a vehicle. In London, 45% do not have access and in England the total number is 20%.
In recent years, apart from London, only the East Midlands has seen an increase in no car access.
It's therefore clear that car access plays a major role in many peoples lives but while many people use statistics about the poorest to justify why we need to invest in more public transport, which is a given, those same people ignore the people who rely on driving.
For example, one stat which was quoted to me was that 44% of the poorest fifth of the UK have no access to cars, compared to 11% of the richest fifth. Well yes, that's true but that also means 66% of the poorest fifth (bottom two income deciles) do have access to cars. If you break down those deciles, 35% of the lowest income decile households (not people) do have access to cars. That's still 35% of households to be concerned about!
Research also suggests that 46% of social housing households have access to cars and in general, single retired adults have least access to them (57%). Again, it is clear that the car is very much a tool for those at the sharper end of UK poverty.
The number of trips per year by mode and household income quintile, also shows that for the first income quintile, driving or being a passenger sees higher use than bus trips, but slightly less than walking; which has actually decreased between 2002 and 2016.
Again, this highlights how much of a tool cars are to all, even if they can be expensive to run.
The tweet exchange was broadly about why increasing fuel duty harms the poorest and when done to encourage drivers to switch to electric vehicles, sees wealthier drivers most likely to switch and the less well off, paying more on one of their highest vehicle outgoings.
Firstly, some data. For the 58 million of us not living in London, 77% of us commute to work by car. Driving is most popular in our rural communities, where 6% of the 11million population and 14% in rural towns/fringes have no access to a vehicle. In London, 45% do not have access and in England the total number is 20%.
In recent years, apart from London, only the East Midlands has seen an increase in no car access.
It's therefore clear that car access plays a major role in many peoples lives but while many people use statistics about the poorest to justify why we need to invest in more public transport, which is a given, those same people ignore the people who rely on driving.
For example, one stat which was quoted to me was that 44% of the poorest fifth of the UK have no access to cars, compared to 11% of the richest fifth. Well yes, that's true but that also means 66% of the poorest fifth (bottom two income deciles) do have access to cars. If you break down those deciles, 35% of the lowest income decile households (not people) do have access to cars. That's still 35% of households to be concerned about!
Research also suggests that 46% of social housing households have access to cars and in general, single retired adults have least access to them (57%). Again, it is clear that the car is very much a tool for those at the sharper end of UK poverty.
The number of trips per year by mode and household income quintile, also shows that for the first income quintile, driving or being a passenger sees higher use than bus trips, but slightly less than walking; which has actually decreased between 2002 and 2016.
Again, this highlights how much of a tool cars are to all, even if they can be expensive to run.
It is therefore impossible to argue that when you penalise drivers as a group, you don't penalise the poorest. But people and households moving through the income deciles is something worth discussing because more affordable driving and better public transport increases social mobility, opportunity and wealth.
The Commission for Rural Communities states that cars are increasingly unaffordable for young people but increasingly necessary, with research showing that cars are a key component of better education. That report illustrates that predictably, car insurance is the greatest challenge in affordability and any efforts to reduce its costs, should be welcomed.
But for those in rural communities, places where relative & absolute poverty has increased on most measures (broadly decreased in urban areas), the car remains a tool to education and work, therefore a tool to opportunity, wealth and social mobility.
A survey on the 'Graduated Driving License', which aims to restrict driving for new drivers, cited that seven in ten young people believed restrictions on when they could use a vehicle would have a negative impact on their lives, citing employment need as a reason.
The trend of driving enabling employment and opportunity is repeated world wide.
Since a woman's right to drive had been improved in Saudi Arabia, female employment increased by 64%. Though not researched in depth, many Saudi women have already expressed its influence on them commuting to work and this piece of research suggests women driving would be one solution to increasing female employment.
But for those in rural communities, places where relative & absolute poverty has increased on most measures (broadly decreased in urban areas), the car remains a tool to education and work, therefore a tool to opportunity, wealth and social mobility.
A survey on the 'Graduated Driving License', which aims to restrict driving for new drivers, cited that seven in ten young people believed restrictions on when they could use a vehicle would have a negative impact on their lives, citing employment need as a reason.
The trend of driving enabling employment and opportunity is repeated world wide.
Since a woman's right to drive had been improved in Saudi Arabia, female employment increased by 64%. Though not researched in depth, many Saudi women have already expressed its influence on them commuting to work and this piece of research suggests women driving would be one solution to increasing female employment.
This is repeated in the United States (sadly the report has eluded me, will add when found), where research shows that single women have benefited hugely in accessing and maintaining employment when they have access to a car.
In the UK, getting to work is vital and a car clearly enables that but 1 in 6 jobs also has a driving requirement & those jobs pay (on average) just above minimum wage. Therefore these jobs immediately fall in the category of low pay, particularly as so many driving specific jobs are part time. Hours which 38% of women typically take up, compared to 13% of men.
It is true that women broadly do not take up driving specific jobs (not jobs which have driving requirements) but increasingly, they are.
Making driving even more unaffordable, to facilitate a change to Electric Vehicles (EVs) means lower access to these millions of employment opportunities.
Self employment is also a vital element to understand in driving, as data shows that these workers have a much higher chance of working at home and different places on different days. When you consider in construction, self-employment runs at 49% (2.7m construction jobs), it's vital that we don't close off these opportunities.
This was particularly noticed during covid-19 for construction, as Site Operating Procedures (SOP) for the sector had a specific section on how workers who used to be picked up by private vehicles, needed to now travel and what companies could do, to facilitate them.
It is also worth noting that self employment salaries are typically low (second income quintile), particularly in the early years and these jobs are regularly used to top up earnings of main employment, or single full time worker households.
Yet we don't just harm the poorest by making driving unaffordable, we also inadvertently harm the environment, as more efficient second hand cars increase in value and the least efficient get cheaper.
This was last experienced nationwide, when the Scrappage Scheme was introduced and smaller, more efficient vehicles spiked in price because many of them were taken off the road.
This meant insurance, fuel consumption, tax & even parking costs increased for those buying second hand cars because now, the most affordable car wasn’t a 1 litre Ford Fiesta but, eg-a 1.8 litre Honda Accord.
We see this locally in cities with ULEV zones and those penalised the most are the poorest. However, that’s not an opposition to ULEV but it is a reality, as is the fact that cost increases are more easily mitigated in cities due to good public transport. Some Mayors have recognised this fact and tried to explore ways to support those residents who must drive.
It's clear that penalise all strategies harm the poorest the most but doing so also impacts their future.
As established earlier in relation to rural living, cars are a tool for employment and this creates opportunities for wealth and social mobility. This is the reality for many people and having access to a car, personally allowed me to do work experience, sustain a part time job and finally, move 200 miles across the nation to my current role; moving from the first decile of income, to the fifth.
This was not uncommon in my family and many others will share this reality. My father, mother, three siblings and brother in law, who recently became an electrician and is currently travelling 150 miles to work, all tell the same story. We all lived on the outskirts of Birmingham too, a city with a decent transport system.
There are solutions to car dependence and one is to invest heavily in public transport but this isn't easy, takes years and costs billions. Another is to better plan cities and towns, so that employment and opportunity is closer in, ensuring that people do not need to consider vehicles as the most efficient form of transport.
This is even harder to do. If we look at Brighton and Hove, the city I have moved to, 60,000 cars leave the area on a daily basis, which means a huge number drive to work. On the surface, people see the city as very wealthy but while housing costs are similar to London, wages do not meet the capitals average salary.
This is highlighted in the fact Brighton and Hove has some of the most and least deprived areas in the UK, with one of the most deprived Whitehawk, still being in a ward with 51% household car ownership.
In terms of reducing car dependence in Brighton and Hove, which is an ultimate aim, the city is constrained by greenbelt and opposition to building on it. Therefore, as housing continues to increase in cost and need, with new employment competing with homes for limited vacant land, how can the city cut driving down in practice and ensure fewer people need to drive? Or, ensure changes to driving costs do not disproportionately impact the poorest, who currently require a car?
So far, I have not covered saving time, or as some people strategically define it, 'convenience' but this is a major factor for many and lots of research shows that parents who drive, do so for a multitude of reasons, with time constraint and work/life balance being a a vital one. This study and many others like it, example this reality and a quick conversation with any driving parent will hammer this reality home.
There is even legislation around 'child friendly working hours', which aims to ensure parents can get some flexibility to meet caring needs. These policies help driving and non-driving families.
It's clear to see that driving is very much a vital element of British life, whether you're wealthy or not. It's time those who don't need to drive, or who live in public transport rich places such as London, to appreciate that driving still increases opportunity for the poorest and helps them move through the incomes deciles.
Whether private or public transport, we must ensure transport is affordable for those who struggle with the costs the most. 'Penalise all’ strategies to force change hurts the poorest the most and you don't fix poverty by making the poorest pay more.
In the UK, getting to work is vital and a car clearly enables that but 1 in 6 jobs also has a driving requirement & those jobs pay (on average) just above minimum wage. Therefore these jobs immediately fall in the category of low pay, particularly as so many driving specific jobs are part time. Hours which 38% of women typically take up, compared to 13% of men.
It is true that women broadly do not take up driving specific jobs (not jobs which have driving requirements) but increasingly, they are.
Making driving even more unaffordable, to facilitate a change to Electric Vehicles (EVs) means lower access to these millions of employment opportunities.
Self employment is also a vital element to understand in driving, as data shows that these workers have a much higher chance of working at home and different places on different days. When you consider in construction, self-employment runs at 49% (2.7m construction jobs), it's vital that we don't close off these opportunities.
This was particularly noticed during covid-19 for construction, as Site Operating Procedures (SOP) for the sector had a specific section on how workers who used to be picked up by private vehicles, needed to now travel and what companies could do, to facilitate them.
It is also worth noting that self employment salaries are typically low (second income quintile), particularly in the early years and these jobs are regularly used to top up earnings of main employment, or single full time worker households.
Yet we don't just harm the poorest by making driving unaffordable, we also inadvertently harm the environment, as more efficient second hand cars increase in value and the least efficient get cheaper.
This was last experienced nationwide, when the Scrappage Scheme was introduced and smaller, more efficient vehicles spiked in price because many of them were taken off the road.
This meant insurance, fuel consumption, tax & even parking costs increased for those buying second hand cars because now, the most affordable car wasn’t a 1 litre Ford Fiesta but, eg-a 1.8 litre Honda Accord.
We see this locally in cities with ULEV zones and those penalised the most are the poorest. However, that’s not an opposition to ULEV but it is a reality, as is the fact that cost increases are more easily mitigated in cities due to good public transport. Some Mayors have recognised this fact and tried to explore ways to support those residents who must drive.
It's clear that penalise all strategies harm the poorest the most but doing so also impacts their future.
As established earlier in relation to rural living, cars are a tool for employment and this creates opportunities for wealth and social mobility. This is the reality for many people and having access to a car, personally allowed me to do work experience, sustain a part time job and finally, move 200 miles across the nation to my current role; moving from the first decile of income, to the fifth.
This was not uncommon in my family and many others will share this reality. My father, mother, three siblings and brother in law, who recently became an electrician and is currently travelling 150 miles to work, all tell the same story. We all lived on the outskirts of Birmingham too, a city with a decent transport system.
There are solutions to car dependence and one is to invest heavily in public transport but this isn't easy, takes years and costs billions. Another is to better plan cities and towns, so that employment and opportunity is closer in, ensuring that people do not need to consider vehicles as the most efficient form of transport.
This is even harder to do. If we look at Brighton and Hove, the city I have moved to, 60,000 cars leave the area on a daily basis, which means a huge number drive to work. On the surface, people see the city as very wealthy but while housing costs are similar to London, wages do not meet the capitals average salary.
This is highlighted in the fact Brighton and Hove has some of the most and least deprived areas in the UK, with one of the most deprived Whitehawk, still being in a ward with 51% household car ownership.
In terms of reducing car dependence in Brighton and Hove, which is an ultimate aim, the city is constrained by greenbelt and opposition to building on it. Therefore, as housing continues to increase in cost and need, with new employment competing with homes for limited vacant land, how can the city cut driving down in practice and ensure fewer people need to drive? Or, ensure changes to driving costs do not disproportionately impact the poorest, who currently require a car?
So far, I have not covered saving time, or as some people strategically define it, 'convenience' but this is a major factor for many and lots of research shows that parents who drive, do so for a multitude of reasons, with time constraint and work/life balance being a a vital one. This study and many others like it, example this reality and a quick conversation with any driving parent will hammer this reality home.
There is even legislation around 'child friendly working hours', which aims to ensure parents can get some flexibility to meet caring needs. These policies help driving and non-driving families.
It's clear to see that driving is very much a vital element of British life, whether you're wealthy or not. It's time those who don't need to drive, or who live in public transport rich places such as London, to appreciate that driving still increases opportunity for the poorest and helps them move through the incomes deciles.
Whether private or public transport, we must ensure transport is affordable for those who struggle with the costs the most. 'Penalise all’ strategies to force change hurts the poorest the most and you don't fix poverty by making the poorest pay more.
Comments
Post a Comment