Fareham one of the most car dependent towns in the UK

Town one of the most car dependent in the UK

Town one of the most car dependent in the UK

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

RESIDENTS of a Hampshire town depend on cars more than any other town in the UK, new statistics have revealed.

According to figures from the Office for National Statistics, Fareham had the highest numbers of cars compared to its population.

As part of an audit of European cities and towns, statisticians found the town had the highest motorisation rate with 538.7 cars for every 1,000 residents.

It comes well ahead of the next UK destination Bracknell Forest, in Berkshire, which has 522.2 per 1,000.

Neighbouring communities proved more environmentally friendly with Southampton having 354 registered cars per 1,000 people and Portsmouth 324.4.

However, Fareham motorists still come way behind car loving residents in Polish town Zgierz, which is the most car dependent town in Europe with 1,333.5 cars per 1,000.

Figures, which are taken from 2009 to 2011, for Fareham put it well above the average of 436 per 1,000 people and in the top 15 per cent in Europe.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:57pm Thu 24 Jul 14

forest hump says...

This data is misleading. Comparing the total city population would make more sense along with public transport availability.
This data is misleading. Comparing the total city population would make more sense along with public transport availability. forest hump
  • Score: 2

3:33pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Zootopian says...

forest hump wrote:
This data is misleading. Comparing the total city population would make more sense along with public transport availability.
No, it's not misleading at all.
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: This data is misleading. Comparing the total city population would make more sense along with public transport availability.[/p][/quote]No, it's not misleading at all. Zootopian
  • Score: 3

3:46pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Linesman says...

forest hump wrote:
This data is misleading. Comparing the total city population would make more sense along with public transport availability.
It is the number of cars per 1000 residents.

What's misleading about that?
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: This data is misleading. Comparing the total city population would make more sense along with public transport availability.[/p][/quote]It is the number of cars per 1000 residents. What's misleading about that? Linesman
  • Score: 4

4:19pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Crazywolf says...

What is misleading is the jump in logic that says having more cars per 1000 people makes you more car dependent. It may simply be that they are more affluent and own second or third vehicles, camper vans for example.....
What is misleading is the jump in logic that says having more cars per 1000 people makes you more car dependent. It may simply be that they are more affluent and own second or third vehicles, camper vans for example..... Crazywolf
  • Score: 8

4:46pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Beer Monster says...

Crazywolf wrote:
What is misleading is the jump in logic that says having more cars per 1000 people makes you more car dependent. It may simply be that they are more affluent and own second or third vehicles, camper vans for example.....
Nail on the head Crazywolf - all this says is that those who own more cars are more likely to live somewhere that people tend to commute into London from...
[quote][p][bold]Crazywolf[/bold] wrote: What is misleading is the jump in logic that says having more cars per 1000 people makes you more car dependent. It may simply be that they are more affluent and own second or third vehicles, camper vans for example.....[/p][/quote]Nail on the head Crazywolf - all this says is that those who own more cars are more likely to live somewhere that people tend to commute into London from... Beer Monster
  • Score: 2

5:57pm Thu 24 Jul 14

downfader says...

Beer Monster wrote:
Crazywolf wrote:
What is misleading is the jump in logic that says having more cars per 1000 people makes you more car dependent. It may simply be that they are more affluent and own second or third vehicles, camper vans for example.....
Nail on the head Crazywolf - all this says is that those who own more cars are more likely to live somewhere that people tend to commute into London from...
This is true. What is also needed is a survey of average mileage and daily usage in the areas mentioned.

However these figures DO show a potential for parking problems. Every one of the cities/towns mentioned have a culture of 2-3 car households, etc.

Glasgow, I will say, does appear to have a good bus service. Often read tweets and forum peeps mention them. Ours in Southampton seems to have gone awol in a lot of places. Manchester and Edinburgh also have better bus services iirc.
[quote][p][bold]Beer Monster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crazywolf[/bold] wrote: What is misleading is the jump in logic that says having more cars per 1000 people makes you more car dependent. It may simply be that they are more affluent and own second or third vehicles, camper vans for example.....[/p][/quote]Nail on the head Crazywolf - all this says is that those who own more cars are more likely to live somewhere that people tend to commute into London from...[/p][/quote]This is true. What is also needed is a survey of average mileage and daily usage in the areas mentioned. However these figures DO show a potential for parking problems. Every one of the cities/towns mentioned have a culture of 2-3 car households, etc. Glasgow, I will say, does appear to have a good bus service. Often read tweets and forum peeps mention them. Ours in Southampton seems to have gone awol in a lot of places. Manchester and Edinburgh also have better bus services iirc. downfader
  • Score: -2

6:43pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Niel says...

Crazywolf wrote:
What is misleading is the jump in logic that says having more cars per 1000 people makes you more car dependent. It may simply be that they are more affluent and own second or third vehicles, camper vans for example.....
Another problem is the growth in housing without viable public transport, TurkTown gets pandered to every time they squinny, much to the detriment of Fareham, but local Fareham bus services are rubbish.

Then there's the parents who just have to get their sprogs into Cams, as the Grammar School advantage is too important, they have to drive their offspring to get them to and from school, as if they apply for transport they might get caught out when they live outside of catchment...

As for affluent, not most areas of Fareham, yes some pockets but mostly average, those that work in Southampton, Smuff or beyond often cannot effectively commute by public transport, only London seems to be reasonably swerved.
[quote][p][bold]Crazywolf[/bold] wrote: What is misleading is the jump in logic that says having more cars per 1000 people makes you more car dependent. It may simply be that they are more affluent and own second or third vehicles, camper vans for example.....[/p][/quote]Another problem is the growth in housing without viable public transport, TurkTown gets pandered to every time they squinny, much to the detriment of Fareham, but local Fareham bus services are rubbish. Then there's the parents who just have to get their sprogs into Cams, as the Grammar School advantage is too important, they have to drive their offspring to get them to and from school, as if they apply for transport they might get caught out when they live outside of catchment... As for affluent, not most areas of Fareham, yes some pockets but mostly average, those that work in Southampton, Smuff or beyond often cannot effectively commute by public transport, only London seems to be reasonably swerved. Niel
  • Score: 1

7:00pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Quentin Heslop says...

It doesn't matter what they do, they are of no actual value.
It doesn't matter what they do, they are of no actual value. Quentin Heslop
  • Score: 0

9:58pm Thu 24 Jul 14

forest hump says...

Linesman wrote:
forest hump wrote:
This data is misleading. Comparing the total city population would make more sense along with public transport availability.
It is the number of cars per 1000 residents.

What's misleading about that?
Alright smartypants, it is meaningless and if you cannot work out why stop being contentious
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: This data is misleading. Comparing the total city population would make more sense along with public transport availability.[/p][/quote]It is the number of cars per 1000 residents. What's misleading about that?[/p][/quote]Alright smartypants, it is meaningless and if you cannot work out why stop being contentious forest hump
  • Score: 0

10:47pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Poppy22 says...

It says "Fareham", so presumably that would include Whiteley (and Knowle?) which comes under Fareham Borough. Car usage in Whiteley is essential for most people (especially if, eg, they have children at 2 or 3 different schools in the Borough or work within a 75 mile radius, as many residents do. There might be a huge business park in Whiteley, but employment legislation is such that employers can't favour local people.
It says "Fareham", so presumably that would include Whiteley (and Knowle?) which comes under Fareham Borough. Car usage in Whiteley is essential for most people (especially if, eg, they have children at 2 or 3 different schools in the Borough or work within a 75 mile radius, as many residents do. There might be a huge business park in Whiteley, but employment legislation is such that employers can't favour local people. Poppy22
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree