[Shades]

I’m back in the office; hybrid working (60:40 home/office).  I usually cycle (17 miles each way) or do a drive/cycle combo (close enough to the office to avoid the traffic and cycle in normal clothes without getting sweaty) if the weather is a bit inclement (or winter).  Bike park at work (many 1000s work at my site) is pretty empty (OK, people are working flexibly) but the traffic queues are almost back to pre-pandemic levels in places.  Junior staff in the office, on the lower salaries, wailing about the petrol price increases, which must be around 20%, yet they keep on paying.  Some people haven’t got a choice, granted, but running the sums, cost of driving must be comparable to the bus or train; or dig a bike out and it cost sweet FA!

I wish Chris Boardman the best luck in the world, but when people are doggedly happy to empty their bank accounts to keep driving you have to wonder.

Topic

[wtjs]

Truer than true! These people

Truer than true! These people, some of whom were featured in a recent dispute between an Edinburgh golf club and scum wishing to cycle past safely, would rather die than be seen on a bus or bike. I concur with at least part of their aspirations.

[TheBillder]

Jimwill wrote:

Jimwill wrote:

Cheaper and more reliable public transport, which would surely come if more people used it?

Or if you build it, they will come? Sadly I think you could gold plate the buses, serve champagne and canapes, and make it all free, and still many would not want to try it.

Public transport is quite good in my city (Edinburgh). The buses are clean and modern, the information about which bus to take and when it’s coming is fairly accurate and easy to access, the fares are ok ish. You can pay by debit card, and if you’d have spent less with a day ticket than the individual journey costs, that’s all you get charged. Most routes go via the centre which is not ideal, and you get charged again if you need to change bus, but apart from that, it’s decent.

And yet still lots of people drive into the city. I cycle past many on my commute, all looking glum, tired and bored. On the bus they could snooze, read, doom-scroll, etc.

I think the problem is tribal – these people are not bus people, and they don’t want to risk sitting next to a bus person in case they catch bus fleas or poverty germs or something. “I have an Audi that I pay hundreds a month for and therefore I cannot share a bus with my inferiors. This attitude costs me hundreds more in fuel and parking but it is worth it to avoid the underclass and demonstrate my superiority.”

Cars are a status symbol and an outward marking of identity and position in a hierarchy. It takes a lot to change that. I must admit that my cycling is also an identity – I have a nice bike and nice kit and am seen to be active. We need to think about how we can change the psychology almost as much as the service and infrastructure.

[matthewn5]

People underestimate the cost

People underestimate the cost of driving by 50% according to this paper in Nature:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01118-w

The authors recommend that car adverts should be forced to include real costs per mile.

[Anonymous]

Cheaper and more reliable
Cheaper and more reliable public transport, which would surely come if more people used it?

[David9694]

Reliable, cheap and frequent

Reliable, cheap and frequent (I.e. planned) public transport and infra;  consistently safe cycle infra.  Attitudes to unecessary car use changing. Rolling back 50-60 years of hopeless car facilitation and prioritisation in favour of public transportansport and cycling. Road pricing or similar to really bring home (i.e. up-front) the cost of driving. Cars with the same tech as the e-scooters to limit their “performance”, i.e. impossible to speed and very difficult to get away with all the other forms of bad driving. 
 

[Rich_cb]

I’d be in favour of scrapping
I’d be in favour of scrapping VED, Insurance Tax and even VAT on car purchases and just loading it all on to fuel or a per mile fee charged at MOT for EVs.

[Rich_cb]

The strange thing is that if
The strange thing is that if you get rid of your car then public transport is good value in comparison to the total cost of car ownership.

If you own a car then it’s appalling value for a single journey.

When I got rid of my car I worked out it was costing me roughly £1750 in non fuel costs every year.

If you can commute by bike/foot that’s a hell of a lot of bus/train/coach journeys to make before you’re worse off without the car.

[Hirsute]

I used rent to cover various
I used rent to cover various options of paying for use of a car. But as JH2727 says, mileage is taken into account and a clear cost of going over your miles is given. And there is no discount for lower mileage

[jh2727]

Steve K wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Most people rent their car these days, so they pay for it whether they use it or not.

If you own the car but don’t use it, then it should retain a slightly more value than using it so less incentive to make that journey by car. Those paying 350 a month or so for the car aren’t going to spend rich’s £8 on the bus

I take your point, but I’m not sure mileage makes that much difference to depreciation, except for very high mileage.  If it did, then it would be factored into rental costs.

Mileage is usually factored into rental costs – though sometimes short term rentals include unlimited mileage (but you are probably paying £30/day, £900 a month for something fairly basic). Mileage is absolutely factored in on leases and PCP agreements. As for used values, you can clearly see how mileage affects resale values if you look on AutoTrader or some such. For electric vehicles, it is common to rent the battery, even when buying the vehicle, and mileage is also a factor in battery rental agreements. It isn’t the largest factor in depreciation, but it is certainly a significant factor.

I mean, it isn’t enough to outweigh extortinate bus fairs, but it is a factor. The bus is only reasonably priced if I’m buying a day ticket/family day ticket and making several trips of a few miles each.

[Steve K]

hirsute wrote:

Most people rent their car these days, so they pay for it whether they use it or not.

If you own the car but don’t use it, then it should retain a slightly more value than using it so less incentive to make that journey by car. Those paying 350 a month or so for the car aren’t going to spend rich’s £8 on the bus

I take your point, but I’m not sure mileage makes that much difference to depreciation, except for very high mileage.  If it did, then it would be factored into rental costs.

[peted76]

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

IMHO it’s all about marginal cost. For my family to get an evening bus into the city centre costs £8 for a return. The kids travel free. To drive in and park costs £1.50. The distance is approx 2 miles. If you already own a car it makes no economic sense to take public transport. If we shifted taxes etc on cars so marginal costs were higher but fixed costs lower (revenue neutral overall) then I think more people would take public transport. *For the avoidance of doubt we don’t actually drive into town but it would make economic sense to do so.

This ^^ – Bus ticket prices can be an outrage for shorter journeys. £15 for one adult and three kids for a return ticket to travel 2miles fom the bus stop 20meters away from my house.

[Hirsute]

Most people rent their car

Most people rent their car these days, so they pay for it whether they use it or not.

If you own the car but don’t use it, then it should retain a slightly more value than using it so less incentive to make that journey by car. Those paying 350 a month or so for the car aren’t going to spend rich’s £8 on the bus

[Steve K]

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

IMHO it’s all about marginal cost. For my family to get an evening bus into the city centre costs £8 for a return. The kids travel free. To drive in and park costs £1.50. The distance is approx 2 miles. If you already own a car it makes no economic sense to take public transport. If we shifted taxes etc on cars so marginal costs were higher but fixed costs lower (revenue neutral overall) then I think more people would take public transport. *For the avoidance of doubt we don’t actually drive into town but it would make economic sense to do so.

I couldn’t agree more – so much of the cost of driving is are sunk costs not dependent on (or only marginally dependent on) actual mileage: purchase price; depreciation; VED; servicing.  The marginal cost for each journey is a tiny proportion of that (and actually, in terms of value for money, you get better vfm from the investment in a car if you use it more).

[Tom_77]

I get the train to work

I get the train to work (currently going in at most once a week), with the recent fare increases it’s £17 for what would be 35 miles each way in the car. Fuel (diesel @ £1.65/l) is probably about £9.50, maybe another couple of quid for wear and tear, call it £12*.

So driving is still a lot cheaper, takes a similar amount of time (around an hour door to door). Diesel needs to be about £2.50/l before it’s cheaper to get the train. Also, the evening trains are only one per hour at the moment. I’ve got some flexibility in the hours I work, but if it was a strict 9-5 I’d be waiting 45 minutes for the train home.

 

* obviously there are other costs involved with a car – depreciation, insurance, etc. But I pay those whether I drive to work or not.

[Rich_cb]

IMHO it’s all about marginal
IMHO it’s all about marginal cost.

For my family to get an evening bus into the city centre costs £8 for a return. The kids travel free.

To drive in and park costs £1.50.

The distance is approx 2 miles.

If you already own a car it makes no economic sense to take public transport.

If we shifted taxes etc on cars so marginal costs were higher but fixed costs lower (revenue neutral overall) then I think more people would take public transport.

*For the avoidance of doubt we don’t actually drive into town but it would make economic sense to do so.

[Author]

Replies