>From the recent postings it seems that some things have been overlooked.
(I've been having e-mail problems, so if I've missed out on someone else's
comments, excuse me)  

It seems to me that the emphasis on urban geography here detracts from
rural reality. Time and again rural geographers have argued that by looking
at urban examples, the realities of rural life are adversely affected. As
Simon Batterbury says it is not possible to introduce cycle lanes on busy,
twisty roads to increase bike use. I would add that when a rural population
is sparse it is not usually possible to provide cheap, usable public
transport when you bring time geography into the equation. Consequently
those who have only thought through their urban examples should not assume
that to 'dump the pump' is the only answer.  

I'm not denying that by using my car I am doing a great deal of damage, yet
placing the blame on individuals who use cars can be counter-productive.
Much of the changes which need to take place in transport policy needs to
look at the differences, as well as the similarities, between rural and
urban needs. In many rural areas as it now stands owning a car is the only
way to be able to get a job. If you don't own a car you are excluded from
working, either in outlying areas or working shifts, which creates further
inequalities. For those at the poorest end of the market, even £2000 a year
for purchase and maintainance is more than they can afford. I know many
people who are caught in this trap locally. 

What we need in addition to geographers assisting in planning is to ensure
that an integrated approach is taken. In addition to the services provided,
time needs to be thought about aswell. E.g., increasing the availability of
buses does not equate to a usable service if they don't fit in with train
times - when buses arrive 10 minutes after the train has left people are
more inclined to use a car; if public transport only serves town centres
mothers won't use them when childcare/schools are located on the outskirts;
if buses don't fit in with shift times you can't take that new job, etc,
etc. Representatives from different sectors of  communities need to get
together with planners to try and make things work better. But no matter
how hard they try, public transport is never going to work for everybody
and there are some (not all) 'urban dwellers' who should be aware of this.

Juliet Jain wrote, 'Why continue on the trajectory that more mobility is
good?'  
Actually in rural areas there is reduced mobility in recent years. My
research focuses on rural provision for, and exclusion of, young people.
One of their main problems is a lack of mobility. If parents don't take
their kids to places, they don't get to go, which means that they don't get
to live. Increasing mobility itself has to be good - though the ways in
which this is achieved CAN be bad. Mobility helps define us and change us
through wider experiences. How that mobility can be achieved, either
through better public tranport or through lower emission private transport
is an issue which affects us all. In rural areas there are fewer buses
which stop earlier in the day and cost more to use. Kids don't get about as
freely (i.e. on public transport) as their parents and their parents before
them did. This affects the ways in which they can develop, both positively
and negatively. Whether this is the result of people using cars more is
beside the point - we live in the present, not the past, and its that and
the future (isn't that why we do research?) which we are trying to deal
with.   

In reply to Juliet's very personal comments I 'chose' to live in the
countryside because that's where the right university was that I wanted to
go to with the right supervisor for me in my PhD - it wasn't a middle class
move to the countryside for clean air and more cricket. At the time, like
many people, I didn't realise just how much time that would cost me in
using public transport and lack of facilities. The reality is not and never
has been the 'rural idyll' of the village shops, schools and people playing
cricket on the green with the sun shining - that's just a middle class
representation. By buying a car I have chosen to spend more time with my
child rather than avoid it, which Juliet's comments on train journeys
insinuate. My child prefers the chat, reading, and music in my car to
freezing cold, windy train stations whilst we wait for the 3rd or 4th
connection on an all-in 10 hour journey (assuming that those connections
arrive). What we do miss, however, is meeting strangers on trains which
better public transport facilities would allow. More public space
interaction improves lives, on the cultural side of transport issues aswell
as the environmental gains. When things get better then we will use train. 

I really do appreciate the clean air I breathe, though. I'm luckier than
many in my surroundings and I fully acknowledge the good side of rural
life. Therefore I want the air that I breathe to stay clean so welcome
other options, but the only way many people in similar situations to myself
could use public transport is to work at home till the early hours most
nights to make up for lost time travelling during the day - I did it for 3
years to get my undergrad degree but frankly I'm getting too old for that
now. Changes in transport policy and restructuring are welcome, but
unfortunately they'll never 'dump the pump' forever. Multiplicities of the
position of the subject in rural areas will stop that happening.


Helen Twidle
Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences
University of Wales
Aberystwyth
Ceredigion
U.K.

Tel 01970 622610


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%