Satisfacción laboral

During the interviews, participants shared their transport mode choices and also gave justifications for use. It was common for a person to feel that their choice was one that they themselves made and not one that someone else or something else made for them. While it is often assumed that most consumption choices are left up to the individual, it can be argued that transport mode selection is

influenced by various institutional and structural factors.

Freedom was mentioned as a reason that parents chose particular modes of transport. Yet, as discussed earlier, many of these same parents who described choosing a mode because of the freedom it provided them, also said they were locked-in to using that mode. These parents were quicker to mention the freedom they felt they achieved when choosing a transport then the fact that they had become dependent or locked-in to using that mode. A few of the different causes for lock-in are presented below.

One of the ways that participants became locked-in to using a specific mode of transport was through their choice of a home location. For parents with young children, achieving freedom could mean having the ability to travel to a safe and clean environment where children could be raised. This is understood by many to

84

be away from overly busy streets in the city centre where crime is more likely to occur, and where it is more expensive to have a yard surrounding a place of residence. Parents therefore have a tendency to move out of these urban areas to free themselves from the undesirable aspects of city life. In this move, people willingly increase the complexity of their travel schedules, deciding to live in areas where it is perhaps more difficult to walk or bicycle to locations and where the public transport option is more infrequent and takes more time. For many, this search for personalized and safe space has had the impact of locking one in to a transport mode, often times the car.

When a move is made to leave an urban area for neighborhoods outside of the city, the family ends up living in areas with a lower level of “urban intensity”

(Newman and Kenworthy 2006). As these two authors called attention to, a certain level of urban intensity must be maintained in order to support a

functioning and effective public transport system and the possibility for walking and biking. All participants living outside of Oslo chose the car for at least one part of the journey inside of the transport triangle. For these parents there was no escaping the use of the automobile on at least one leg of the journey. Marchetti’s Constant explains this by stating that human beings are accustomed to using approximately one and a half hours per day for travel (Marchetti 1994). People living multiple kilometers from their work place, coupled with the need to drop off a child, increases the likelihood they will use a car. Public transport, bicycling and walking are out of the question once the distances become too great and the trips require multiple stops. These same parents reported equally frequent use of the car for trips outside of the transport triangle as well. The distances these parents were required to travel had them locked-in to using the car for journeys of all kinds.

Urban intensity of a certain level also impacts the proximity at which a family lives to the day care. As has been suggested, there was a strong tendency for parents to stay away from long commutes on public transportation with children.

Reasons parents gave for staying away from the public transport service when

85

travelling with children were many. Parents spoke of need to walk between stops and the uncomfortable experience of travelling with children while being

surrounded by strangers as a few examples.

On the other hand, most parents living closer than 2km from the day care walked or cycled the distance. Data from the research showed a strong correlation

between where the day care is located in relation to housing and how parents travel between the two. Day care location, just as pursuit of freedom and financial constraints had the potential to create situations of lock-in.

The search for freedom does not stop at choosing a place to live with more space and a yard. It continues with the way in which people schedule transport. For many, freedom is the ability to set ones schedule, to leave when one is ready, not having to depend on others or other time tables to get around. The

individualization of scheduling practices also could also have lock-in affects. As has been presented in the literature, the more individualistic ones schedule, the more complex coordination becomes between individuals (Shove 2003, Sheller and Urry 2000, Southerton 2003). Fewer and fewer people can rely on the communal schedules which had the affect of keeping people relatively

synchronized in terms of daily routines. Instead, individual scheduling has made it increasingly difficult for people to live without the need of a fast and

independent mode of transport. This coordination problem requires that people rely on their individual travel modes to transport them as swiftly as possible to meet obligations. This tendency to individualize the schedules, brought on by individualized modes of transport, has increased feelings of rush and lead to people being locked-in to the car.

Another factor which could be the cause of a feeling of lock-in was financial constraints. Some participants mentioned their choice of home location was a result of financial constraints. Because these parents felt more comfortable raising their children in areas where they could have a yard and a large enough house for their family, they saw a need to move away from where their job was

86

located in Oslo. Parents who described their situation as such felt a need to provide for their family with sufficient space both inside and outside the home.

This search leads these parents to live multiple kilometers away from their work place and locked-in to using the car both inside and outside of the triangle.

A different type of cultural lock-in also appeared in the data as many participants talked about the relationship between car ownership and the arrival of the first child. One participant in particular who did not own a car, described this situation in detail, explaining the fact that he didn’t understand why it was ingrained in the thoughts of so many Oslo area residents that having a child always meant

needing to buy a car.

(…) It is a thought that is stuck in the heads of Norwegian that if they have a child, they must have a car. Everyone who has a child says: ‘Ok, now we have a child, now we must have a car.’ Why is it this way? Why does everyone have to have a car? Why does everything suddenly change? I think it everything goes alright without a car.

While this was the only participant who spoke fully about this potential cultural lock-in, many other parents mentioned in the interviews the first car coming with the first child as a fact of life. Parents described a changing transportation

situation when a child was brought into the family. This situation was described as changing not only because participants had the tendency to move out of the city once the first child was born, but also due to the requirement of travelling with one more person. Eight participants in the sample described the purchase of a car connected to the birth of the first child during the interview.