• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Car ownership vs. car use

Status
Not open for further replies.

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
Observing similar discussions over the years I get the impression that people with a genuine need for a car are the ones most likely to respond to "lifestyle" type comments.

Those who make the lifestyle comments provably live and work in an urban area or city with fantastic public transport!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,069
Indeed so, as I posted in #38.
The railway already has a high proportion of the markets it's most suited for - centre-to-centre intercity travel and commuting into London. Intercity could be boosted by integrating other modes so it's easier to access the train, otherwise journeys between the suburbs of different cities tend to be by car. To my mind the big opportunity in rail is commuting into other cities plus off-peak travel everywhere. HS2 and NPR will transfer some car users to rail, but is mainly about creating more economic activity without the downsides that would occur if it was based on driving or flying instead.
Living at the end of the Met line rail is only useful for travelling into London or cross London to Kent or Sussex. Even then the lack of buses after 6pm and the cost of parking means that I may as well drive all the way rather than rail heading at Chesham or Chalfont for evening trips.

For anywhere else by rail means travelling out of my way for an hour by which time I may as well drive for anywhere south of York.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,399
Location
UK
I love my car. It doesn't really matter if it is a lifestyle choice or a necessity. I love driving it and I love the convenience and freedom it brings me.
 

TrafficEng

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2019
Messages
419
Location
North of London
Umm I drive the buses... the first or last buses can’t run unless we find another way to get ourselves to or from the depot!

Several of the drivers working for the local bus company in the rural area I come from would take a bus home with them and park it up in a quiet side road ready for the next day. Not sure of the legality or practicality of that these days, nor whether the bus would still be there and intact in the morning.

This again demonstrates how things have changed over the last 50 years or so, and what worked then doesn't necessarily work now.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,073
I love my car. It doesn't really matter if it is a lifestyle choice or a necessity. I love driving it and I love the convenience and freedom it brings me.
Sums up the end of the 20th C: Me me me. Sod the environment.
Umm I drive the buses... the first or last buses can’t run unless we find another way to get ourselves to or from the depot!
Once upon a time bus (and railway) depots were in towns, where people could walk or cycle to work. Now we have things like Central Rivers depot that is guaranteed to increase car use. Hence my suggestion that employers who put plant where people have to drive should pay an ongoing tax to compensate the rest of us.
 

TrafficEng

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2019
Messages
419
Location
North of London
Once upon a time bus (and railway) depots were in towns, where people could walk or cycle to work. Now we have things like Central Rivers depot that is guaranteed to increase car use. Hence my suggestion that employers who put plant where people have to drive should pay an ongoing tax to compensate the rest of us.

The town planners want the land in town centres for lots of lovely flats, not to store noisy, dirty smelly buses (their opinion, not mine).
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
First question is why do you want to reduce car ownership?

It only matters where residential car parking is resulting in inefficient land use. In on-street parking scenarios the local authority can implement a CPZ and ration resident permits. Job done.

I live in an area that is controlled by a CPZ. And virtually every residential street in the area is reduced to a single lane by all the cars parked on both sides of the road. That makes the environment less pleasant, walking and cycling harder - and of course makes driving slower because of the impossibility of passing a car going the other way. Rationing would only impact this if you took it to the level of completely denying many households a permit.

For the vast majority of the country land use efficiency is not a big issue. It isn't like you can build extra houses on people's driveways.

No, but you can (and often do) concrete over most people's front gardens in order to park the cars there. Again, much less pleasant environment for everyone, less wildlife, and significantly increased risk of flooding.

An argument can be made that having a car on the driveway encourages people to drive rather than walking or cycling. Fair comment, but that's an issue for how we charge for car use, not ownership.

Yeah, and I think that is a very strong argument, since, for many people, once they have bought the car and therefore the cost of purchase, insurance, MOT, etc., as well as the inconvenience of maintenance and associated car-owning bureaucracy become sunk costs, people are going to drive to places even where there is good public transport, because the marginal cost of driving is so small.

But in connection with car ownership, I think the real issue here is that it's very hard to separate ownership from use - so if you want to reduce car use - which is the real aim, reducing car ownership is likely to be an important part of that.

And there is a question of the energy (and CO2) consumed in manufacturing a car - I don't have the figures but I'm going to hazard a guess that it's usually many times the lifetime energy consumed by driving it.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
3 or 4 gym sessions and 1 supermarket delivery.
To those that say supermarket delivery you need to appreciate that it isnt ideal for everybody. Might work for those who rely heavily on ready meals/frozen foods.
Plus



I have no interest in doing a 1+ hour round cycle trip for fresh produce every few days. Plus we make the vast majority of meals from fresh foods so it would not even be feasible on bike.

How far is your supermarket from your home, in your previous post you imply that they are 2 mile trips, therefore to cycle that distance (2 miles each way) in an hour would be about 4mph which is a fairly quick walk.

Most cyclists can manage 8mph, so unless you are including the time in the shop (which would also be true of the car) then it would imply that the shopping trip wasn't just 2 miles.
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,399
Location
UK
Sums up the end of the 20th C: Me me me. Sod the environment.

That is, the assumption that my car is a ICE and not an EV (internal combustion/Electric Vehicle)

Public transport will not get me to work tomorrow, public transport would have cost me £50.50 at the weekend. Public transport still creates pollution, congestion and health issues. If everyone got rid of their cars tomorrow you would need to create a mass transit solution to move those people. That creates the same problems and also destroy the environment. Not forgetting that me having a car puts money into the economy and not just through taxes.

The solutions to car/vehicle ownership and usage does not lie with a public transport network. There needs to be a massive cultural way in which we live our lives.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Those who make the lifestyle comments provably live and work in an urban area or city with fantastic public transport!

I live in a village with a population of circa 8,000, it had an hourly bus service and 2tph.

Over the last 8 years I've:
Cycled 3 miles to work
Used a train to travel up to an hour for work
Walked 1 mile to get to work

As a household we have one car, to get rid of it:
- my other half would need to change jobs
- we'd see their family a bit less/it would require more planning (probably hiring a car to do so)
- we'd have to change how we go on holiday (less camping) or hire a car to do so.
- we'd have to do more online shopping

There's currently few activities which or children do which we couldn't walk/cycle to (there's one, but that could be done by train), although some would be more attractive if there was less traffic, although there's the potential to use a bus for that.

Yes there would be an impact on what we could/couldn't do. However it could be done and probably wouldn't impact is all that much.

We already make at least half of school/childcare drop off/pick ups by walking.

We certainly don't live in a city and by the government's definition it's not even urban (which would be >10,000) and certainly not even a mid sized town (40,000).

85% of people live in an urban setting (population of >10,000). That's a lot of people for whom public transport is a viable option if it were to exist (it mostly didn't exist as people are too in love with their cars).

That's a lot of people within 3 miles of most facilities which they will use week by week. Which makes walking or cycling an option (especially e-bikes) for a lot of that travel.
 

TrafficEng

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2019
Messages
419
Location
North of London
I live in an area that is controlled by a CPZ. And virtually every residential street in the area is reduced to a single lane by all the cars parked on both sides of the road. That makes the environment less pleasant, walking and cycling harder - and of course makes driving slower because of the impossibility of passing a car going the other way. Rationing would only impact this if you took it to the level of completely denying many households a permit.

That's a decision made by the local council and the people living on the street. If they want a more pleasant environment and better conditions for walking and cycling then some or all of the parking can be removed. It can even be done on a street-by-street basis with the residents of one street opting to give up their permits and spaces.

Put it to the vote, either at the local elections or through a local referendum/consultation. But I'd be surprised if more than a handful of streets in the country would vote overwhelmingly to get rid of all their parking.

No, but you can (and often do) concrete over most people's front gardens in order to park the cars there. Again, much less pleasant environment for everyone, less wildlife, and significantly increased risk of flooding.

This has already been dealt with by changes in the planning laws and local policy imposed by councils. If you want to put in a new driveway the council can insist on it being a permeable surface and restrict the percentage of the front garden which is converted.

I'd also make the point that, whilst changes to front gardens are now tightly restricted, many people freely dig up all living things in their back garden and cover it in 'concrete'. It is odd how you hear fewer complaints about people paving over their back gardens.

Yeah, and I think that is a very strong argument, since, for many people, once they have bought the car and therefore the cost of purchase, insurance, MOT, etc., as well as the inconvenience of maintenance and associated car-owning bureaucracy become sunk costs, people are going to drive to places even where there is good public transport, because the marginal cost of driving is so small.

That is one of the thrusts of this thread. If costs are shifted from ownership to use then you disincentivise use without needing to worry so much about ownership.

And there is a question of the energy (and CO2) consumed in manufacturing a car - I don't have the figures but I'm going to hazard a guess that it's usually many times the lifetime energy consumed by driving it.

The figures vary, but Government scrappage schemes have been justified on the basis that the impact of new car production is lower than ongoing emissions.

The CO2 released depends on the type of car and the assumptions you make about production. Some calculations assume the metals are extracted as ore and involve the full process through to assembled vehicle. But obviously if the vehicle is built using 100% recycled materials the CO2 will be lower. Where you sit on the sliding scale between those points largely depends on which argument you are making. Where in the world the car is built is also a factor of course.

One fundamental shift in the calculation will come with the widespread adoption of pure EV's. If the only significant moving parts are motor(s) and wheels then the lifespan of vehicles could be significantly increased compared to what we are used to, especially if they are only used for low mileages. Battery packs could be swapped and fully recycled when required. The days when the body rusted and fell apart within 10 years are long gone. Who knows, maybe one day cars will follow trains and commonly go in for a mid-life interior refresh with the seats recovered and interior features upgraded. Two or maybe three lives from the manufacturing CO2 of one.
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,107
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
One fundamental shift in the calculation will come with the widespread adoption of pure EV's. If the only significant moving parts are motor(s) and wheels then the lifespan of vehicles could be significantly increased compared to what we are used to, especially if they are only used for low mileages. Battery packs could be swapped and fully recycled when required. The days when the body rusted and fell apart within 10 years are long gone. Who knows, maybe one day cars will follow trains and commonly go in for a mid-life interior refresh with the seats recovered and interior features upgraded. Two or maybe three lives from the manufacturing CO2 of one.

I think that's a great concept, but it requires us to get past the idea of a car as a fashion accessory. Many (most?) people who buy a brand new car do so not because the old one is worn out but because they want to be seen driving the latest model. The theory is that millennials aren't influenced by such things and will make decisions based on logic, but I wonder. Walking through our local station car park this morning, there were an awful lot of fashion accessories!
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
Bad luck. That's a far better reason than most people can offer.
Maybe society has to allow for situations like this, maybe tax employers who put people in this position?

A tax on employing people who don't live on a high quality public transport route to the workplace is effectively a tax on doing business outside London, and particularly a tax on doing business outside a major city. Is that really what the economy needs right now?
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,486
Location
North West England
Once upon a time bus (and railway) depots were in towns, where people could walk or cycle to work. Now we have things like Central Rivers depot that is guaranteed to increase car use. Hence my suggestion that employers who put plant where people have to drive should pay an ongoing tax to compensate the rest of us.

I've long advocated for "localism" and have often argued that employers NIC should be variable according to distance between the employee's home and their normal workplace. I.e. zero employers NIC for employees living within easy walking distance, right up to a penal rate, something like 25%, for employees living, say, over 90 minutes from home. That would encourage employers to engage more local people and if that were not possible, it would encourage them to consider relocation or building more regional/local bases again (like they used to). For people working from home, again, the zero rate. And yes, I can see where the anomalies and loopholes would arise but such a policy would send a very strong message to encourage localism. If people work close to home, there'll be more opportunity for shops and other facilities to be viable in the local areas where people live and thus less need for transport (whether private cars or public transport).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Most cyclists can manage 8mph, so unless you are including the time in the shop (which would also be true of the car) then it would imply that the shopping trip wasn't just 2 miles.

And sometimes road layouts can make a short journey like that quicker to cycle, as indeed the Dutch try to arrange deliberately. This was the case for my previous house to Bletchley station (the route by car was roughly twice as long and mostly 30mph limit), and now the door-to-door time is about the same for both modes (or 10 minutes longer if you walk), i.e. I need to leave 20 minutes before the train (including ticket and tea purchase) for either cycling or car, or 30 minutes before if walking.
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,486
Location
North West England
One fundamental shift in the calculation will come with the widespread adoption of pure EV's. If the only significant moving parts are motor(s) and wheels then the lifespan of vehicles could be significantly increased compared to what we are used to, especially if they are only used for low mileages. Battery packs could be swapped and fully recycled when required. The days when the body rusted and fell apart within 10 years are long gone. Who knows, maybe one day cars will follow trains and commonly go in for a mid-life interior refresh with the seats recovered and interior features upgraded. Two or maybe three lives from the manufacturing CO2 of one.

Trouble is, we could just as easily end up with the "disposable" scenario, when the "board" fails on your washing machine and it's cheaper to buy a new one than get an engineer to come and replace it. Or like mobile phones when technology is moving so fast, people want the better functionality so buy a new one every 3 years and chuck the old one in the bin. We had a sofa - the cost quoted to re-cover it was far higher than buying a new one. Look at inkjet printers - often cheaper to buy a new one rather than pay for a new set of cartridges. A car may not have many "moving" parts, but there is still a lot of potential for component failure, i.e. circuit boards, switches, sensors, window/wiper motors, etc etc - lots of the moving parts of IC cars are pretty quick and simple to repair/replace. On a traditional car, a switch may be able to be replaced in just a few minutes, but on a EV, if it's an integral part of a circuit board, the whole board would need changing.

We'd have to be VERY careful not to get into that position with electric cars. For a start, I'd say we'd need to charge full VAT on a car purchase but zero VAT rate repairs and replacement parts as an incentive for people to repair/upgrade rather than replace. I also think we'd need some kind of price regulation to prevent manufacturers selling new ones at a loss in order to gain market share and then profit from hugely expensive replacement batteries/boards etc.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Look at inkjet printers - often cheaper to buy a new one rather than pay for a new set of cartridges

That one is a pricing model problem - the manufacturers deliberately sell the printers as a loss leader and make the money back on ink. Simple legislation could prevent that by banning loss leaders in this sort of concept, and banning any design element that causes the use of third party or refilled cartridges to be prevented.

If cars started using similar concepts, similar legislation would solve that too.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,420
Ok the attention is on power source for cars. We need to use tax and parking restrictions to reduce the size of cars.
I get stupidly angry when I see adverts for “green” massive SUVs.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,073
Ok the attention is on power source for cars. We need to use tax and parking restrictions to reduce the size of cars.
And the amount they are used.
I get stupidly angry when I see adverts for “green” massive SUVs.
and I get angry when people pretend that driving an electric car is somehow virtuous. They still cause congestion, tyre wear, ill-health (through people not getting enough exercise,) - and still gobble energy that we should be using less of. Renewables might be increasing their share of the UK market, but we're still importing gas from the middle east, wood pellets from N America and non-renewable electricity from Europe etc.
Keep electricity for rail, trams and trolleybuses. It's too precious to allow individuals to guzzle it.
 

talltim

Established Member
Joined
17 Jan 2010
Messages
2,454
Mine is a case of no transport early enough in the morning, I start work at 6am. The first public transport doesn’t arrive until gone 7. It’s around 20 miles away so too far to walk/ cycle etc.

Previous employment where I started at 9-5 within walking distance of a train station, a monthly ticket was £170 but it was costing me £20 a day in petrol to drive. I sold my car and didn’t own a car for well over a year until redundancy and a new job impossible with transport
My boss does a 40 mile round trip to/from work by bike every day. Can't say I'd fancy it myself.
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,486
Location
North West England
That one is a pricing model problem - the manufacturers deliberately sell the printers as a loss leader and make the money back on ink. Simple legislation could prevent that by banning loss leaders in this sort of concept, and banning any design element that causes the use of third party or refilled cartridges to be prevented.

If cars started using similar concepts, similar legislation would solve that too.

You have a lot of misplaced faith in "legislation". Govt may try to "solve" it, but successive governments have failed miserably in other areas of legislation. What if the car manufacturer artificially lowers it's "cost" price to justify a low price tag - after all Govt legislation has so failed failed to address multi-nationals from profit-shifting into low tax countries by artificially inflating "costs" of their goods sold in the UK. Just look at the weak price regulation re supermarkets, where the supermarket makes "hidden" profits by charging suppliers for shelf space or contributions to marketing or retro discounts based on volume etc - all so that they can show a supplier invoice to the regulators showing they pay 45p per can for a tin of soup they sell at 50p, thus covering up the extra money they claim from the supplier elsewhere - and the regulator falls for it!

If the last few decades of globalisation, international trade and the internet has showed us anything, it's that governments are always on the back foot and that big business are always years/decades ahead.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,420
I get angry when people pretend that driving an electric car is somehow virtuous. They still cause congestion, tyre wear,
Aren’t tyre and brake particles a surprisingly big health issue, that barely anyone seems aware of?
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Aren’t tyre and brake particles a surprisingly big health issue, that barely anyone seems aware of?

Correct, much the same issue as Diesel in that they produce relatively fine particulates which are detrimental to health. With EVs, brake particle emissions are reduced because of regenerative braking, but countered by increased tyre wear because the vehicle is (usually) much heavier!
 

underbank

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2013
Messages
1,486
Location
North West England
Aren’t tyre and brake particles a surprisingly big health issue, that barely anyone seems aware of?

Yep. A bit like how people used to think petrol cars and diesel trains were brilliant in the 60s as they were replacing the polluting steam engines, and like how people thought gas central heating was fantastic as it replaced coal fires. All based on the visibility of the smoke from coal fires, the blackening of buildings near train lines, cities swamped by smog etc. I hope we are now wiser and realise that it's the pollutants you can't see which are the major problem, not the ones you can see!
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Yep. A bit like how people used to think petrol cars and diesel trains were brilliant in the 60s as they were replacing the polluting steam engines, and like how people thought gas central heating was fantastic as it replaced coal fires. All based on the visibility of the smoke from coal fires, the blackening of buildings near train lines, cities swamped by smog etc. I hope we are now wiser and realise that it's the pollutants you can't see which are the major problem, not the ones you can see!
To be fair each of those was an improvement, but none of them was enough to achieve what we now mostly agree is needed. And I do worry that unlike something like the ozone hole which could be solved with technology, addressing climate change requires major lifestyle changes which are much harder to achieve.
Ok the attention is on power source for cars. We need to use tax and parking restrictions to reduce the size of cars.
I get stupidly angry when I see adverts for “green” massive SUVs.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...iggest-cause-of-emissions-rise-figures-reveal
SUVs second biggest cause of emissions rise, figures reveal
If SUV drivers were a nation, they would rank seventh in the world for carbon emissions
The article compares 2018 with 2019, and the biggest cause is power generation - which has a clear path to achieving reductions, unlike road transport.
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
My boss does a 40 mile round trip to/from work by bike every day. Can't say I'd fancy it myself.

I can cycle at about 8-9mph, I’m not leaving before 4 am for a 6 am start working 10 hours then about 2.5 hour cycle home. Not practical
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I can cycle at about 8-9mph, I’m not leaving before 4 am for a 6 am start working 10 hours then about 2.5 hour cycle home. Not practical

I've long taken the view that the optimal commute is somewhere around 30 minutes by whatever mode is used. Far enough for a work-life split (and decent exercise by bike or on foot) but not so far it eats your day. 5 hours of cycling for a working day is good if you're a cycling nut but not for anyone vaguely normal. Of course, you might be able to combine public transport into such a journey to make it workable.
 

MidlandsChap

Member
Joined
15 Apr 2018
Messages
194
How far is your supermarket from your home, in your previous post you imply that they are 2 mile trips, therefore to cycle that distance (2 miles each way) in an hour would be about 4mph which is a fairly quick walk.

Most cyclists can manage 8mph, so unless you are including the time in the shop (which would also be true of the car) then it would imply that the shopping trip wasn't just 2 miles.

Its 2 miles. Not sure why this needs analysing to the nth degree.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
so it can't possibly take you an hour for a trip to the shop. That's why other (ordinary) cyclists here are incredulous.

He was saying it was an hour round trip including the shopping. But in that case it would likely be about 45 minutes round trip including the shopping if he went by car. It's neither here nor there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top