Chapter 10: Mobility vs. Affordability as Motivations for Car-Ownership Choice in Urban Fringe, Low-Income Australia

Access to employment opportunities is a major motivation for car ownership when income is low and there are few transport alternatives. For example, research in the United States has shown a strong causal link between auto ownership and employment (Raphael & Rice, 2002). Other work suggests that providing cars as part of welfare to work programs can be successful in increasing employment (Cervero & Tsai, 2003; Waller & Hughes, 1999), whereas the provision of motorbikes has been suggested as a means of increasing access to employment opportunities amongst UK rural unemployed youth (Storey & Brennan, 2002).

Although the motor car increases mobility, car ownership comes with significant and increasing costs. These are important concerns for those on low incomes. ‘Forced car ownership’ is a term that has been used to describe low-income car users located in areas with poor accessibility and limited mobility alternatives (Banister, 1994; Jones, 1987). The high costs of car ownership are said to be ‘forced’ on households with a limited capacity to afford them where no cheaper mobility alternatives are available. In the Australian context ‘transport poverty’ is a term which has been used to describe low-income households that are said to be ‘forced’ to consume more travel costs than they can afford (Gleeson & Randolph, 2002). Those affected are said to be under increasing financial stress as fuel prices increase, especially when an increase in mortgage interest rates puts pressure on housing costs (Dodson & Sipe, 2006).