Mobility and conviviality in a rural environment

Being mobile is essential for access to jobs, services, shops, leisure activities and social life.  However, rural communities are characterised by a scarcity of local services, longer commuting distances and weak public transport services that could potentially constitute an alternative to the car. Hence, the latter is the main mode of transport used by rural households, who use it for 76% of their trips (INSEE 2009).

For physical, financial, cultural or behavioural reasons, some households are rarely, if ever, mobile. Most notably, this results in a limiting of the geographical perimeter used on a daily basis leading to strong dependency on the local and on networks of family and friends.

Moreover, the rising cost of fuel puts an added pressure on “vulnerable” households with modest incomes, who are forced to succumb to long and costly daily commuting. What will happen if they can no longer afford their mobility budgets?
Most journeys are made by single-occupant cars, which are responsible for both air and noise pollution, and take up a great deal of space.

These changes in the conditions of mobility call into question the lifestyles of these communities and their futures: if people can no longer get about, will they still choose to live in these areas?

When households are interviewed about shared modes, the issue of “the other” often comes up, and is sometimes regarded as an obstacle to the development of these ‘altermobilities’.

Car-sharing between individuals works based on questions of trust. Its success depends on good relations between car-sharers, who must also have compatible lifestyles and a similar view of the car. Daily carpooling can breed a certain mistrust of drivers with regard to carpooling websites: preferring to know the person with whom they carpool, they tend instead to seek such individuals out among their network of acquaintances.

Finally, traditional hitchhiking always seems to raise the ‘fear of others’. To quell these misgivings, local hitchhiking networks therefore function based on communities that bring together hitchhikers and drivers, who, even if they don’t know each other, recognise a distinctive emblem chosen by the network.

In general, the support of local authorities doesn’t seem to be necessary for the development of an altermobility. This can be seen in the numerous local hitchhiking networks and on-demand transport services that have been set up by ordinary people, either individually or as part of associations. This independence seems to go hand in hand with their rapid development, allowing them to avoid bureaucratic complications. However, it is hard to ensure a long-term future for these networks, as the responsibility tends to fall on a few individuals, making it difficult to sustain.
However, the involvement of public authorities can bolster these networks and the associations that run them. Thus we see that the most developed and oldest networks are those that have received the support of local authorities.

We can also see the government’s role in the development of these altermobilities when it comes to carpooling, which local communities have become involved in by setting up special parking areas. The ‘formalisation’ of these parking areas has had a strong impact on the development of carpooling. It shows the local authorities support for the practice and increases the visibility of these parking areas, which can trigger changes in practices among drivers.