Is car ownership unaffordable?

[Bletchleyite]

Yes. It offers that option which I ranked the last. A private car is luxury which is never under consideration if you want to save money.

You've said this lots of times, but a private car is not luxury, it's a basic expectation of most peoples' lives which can be obtained and used very cheaply, compared to some utterly preposterous rail fares.

And once you've bought it, taxed and insured it and do an annual service*, the marginal cost of a journey is just the fuel and a tiny amount of tyre/brake wear. Which mostly for one person is going to be about half to two thirds of the train fare (sometimes less), and if the whole family are going it'll be way, way cheaper.

* Service mileage intervals are generally high enough that they don't, for most users, affect marginal journeys.

 

[miklcct]

You've said this lots of times, but a private car is not luxury, it's a basic expectation of most peoples' lives which can be obtained and used very cheaply, compared to some utterly preposterous rail fares.

Of course the fact that a private car isn't affordable to be has never changed. I can't afford a thousand in deprecation, insurance and parking every year. The fixed cost of car ownership a year is already about half a year of rail fare.

Even if I put the cheapest ULEZ-compliant fully depreciated car into insurance quotes, the results returned are at least a thousand.

So buying a car is a non-starter as it is too expensive. If the train fare is too expensive, hiring a car isn't an affordable option as well as it will cost around a hundred to hire and drive it for a day.

 

[MrJeeves]

Even if I put the cheapest ULEZ-compliant fully depreciated car into insurance quotes, the results returned are at least a thousand.

Of course, that's for the first year or two, after which the costs will go down...

Recently insured my first car, which is realistically worth more in scrap than its actual functional value, and that was about £1.1k, but I'd expect that to be more like £500 after 2 years or so.

 

[signed]

You've said this lots of times, but a private car is not luxury, it's a basic expectation of most peoples' lives which can be obtained and used very cheaply, compared to some utterly preposterous rail fares.

The car is only cheaper if :

- You can afford it (not to end up in ****ty financing) and
- You buy a car that has already depreciated (so that you don't loose money as soon as you leave the lot) and
- You do the maintenance in time (which may still cost you 100s at a mechanic) and
- You don't get slammed by insurance costs and
- You resell it for the same price or a profit

In most cases you loose a ton of money that isn't recovered by the value of the car going up (they never do) or the opportunity cost of not taking public transport or bikes for ex.
And that's even before the unreliable mess that are new non-japanese cars

This is for one person only, of course once you start putting children and everything changes.

Sure marginal costs are basically non-existent, but for 1 person living in a public transport-served area that doesn't need a car for work..., a car basically never makes economical sense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course the fact that a private car isn't affordable to be has never changed. I can't afford a thousand in deprecation, insurance and parking every year. The fixed cost of car ownership a year is already about half a year of rail fare.

Even if I put the cheapest ULEZ-compliant fully depreciated car into insurance quotes, the results returned are at least a thousand.

So buying a car is a non-starter as it is too expensive. If the train fare is too expensive, hiring a car isn't an affordable option as well as it will cost around a hundred to hire and drive it for a day.

Of course, that's for the first year or two, after which the costs will go down...

Recently insured my first car, which is realistically worth more in scrap than its actual functional value, and that was about £1.1k, but I'd expect that to be more like £500 after 2 years or so.

The car is only cheaper if :

- You can afford it (not to end up in ****ty financing) and
- You buy a car that has already depreciated (so that you don't loose money as soon as you leave the lot) and
- You do the maintenance in time (which may still cost you 100s at a mechanic) and
- You don't get slammed by insurance costs and
- You resell it for the same price or a profit

In most cases you loose a ton of money that isn't recovered by the value of the car going up (they never do) or the opportunity cost of not taking public transport or bikes for ex.
And that's even before the unreliable mess that are new non-japanese cars

This is for one person only, of course once you start putting children and everything changes.

Sure marginal costs are basically non-existent, but for 1 person living in a public transport-served area that doesn't need a car for work..., a car basically never makes economical sense.

The latter is a fairly key point. Most people don't live alone. As soon as you have more than one person in the car, it blows away the economics of the train. And there are cases where hiring can be cheaper than the train - try a peak return journey from Manchester to London for one example.

It is disproportionately expensive for young adults to own cars, I'll give you. But near universal ownership would seem to suggest that it is very much affordable.

 

[signed]

But near universal ownership would seem to suggest that it is very much affordable.

The thing is that it's not that cars are cheap, is that public transport doesn't get them where they want, when they want, for the price they want and in the confort some want.

With an effective public transport, the car ownership drops rapidly

Ex : Switzerland

https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/mobility-transport/transport-infrastructure-vehicles/vehicles/road-vehicles-stock-level-motorisation.html#

In 2023, there were an average of 540 passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants in Switzerland, with considerable regional differences: Particularly in urban agglomerations with a dense public transport network, the level of motorisation was considerably below the Swiss average.

In the UK the average is 606 per 1000 inhabitant, with Greater London (having the densest public transport) being at 42% car ownership which is in my opinion a pretty good indicator

 

[Sonic1234]

But near universal ownership would seem to suggest that it is very much affordable.

It's more than just economics. Cars are a convenience, a status symbol, a signal of having "made it" in the world or of adulthood in general. A lot believe they need a car to function.

The fixed costs of running a car often get rolled into "household bills" and quickly forgotten. Repairs are considered bad luck rather than a cost of travel.

The most people think about when comparing going by car to rail is the cost of petrol, and they probably underestimate that. No one except the Excel wizards of this world have a per mile figure for car travel. This is why people have such a shock at rail fares.

Also, a lot of the country would need a car to access the railway.

 

[signed]

But near universal ownership would seem to suggest that it is very much affordable.

It's not affordable, beit for young adults or elderly.

A car, in pure money term, is a luxury item, it's not an investment, it's a massively depreciating asset (if you buy new or relatively new) with costs of ownership rising every year, especially as more and more cities become hostile to cars (parking costs, congestion charges etc...).

I do grant that it's very much a necessity for most, and there are instances where that makes financial sense but the asset in itself is not what makes financial sense, it's what it's getting used for (I.e getting to work).

Disclaimer : I do own a car, and I see the bills come in seeing how a €80-100 return for Paris (roughly 700km one way) makes sense when I pay €70 for insurance on a month alone

 

[miklcct]

The thing is that it's not that cars are cheap, is that public transport doesn't get them where they want, when they want, for the price they want and in the confort some want.

In this case, if these journeys are really too important me to avoid (for example, attending a British Championship), I'll have no choice but to hire a car, and hopefully I won't do these journeys more than twice a year. I used to have a car club ownership for this purpose and I have already cancelled it because I had never used it for years before the cancellation.
Those businesses / events who are not easily accessible without driving a private car won't get my custom, because the monetary cost of getting there is too high.
If I have some spare money to spend on luxuries, I'll rather put it in my home (if I decide to own one) which hopefully appreciate in value in long term, or some other forms of experience / entertainment which can enrich my life.

It's more than just economics. Cars are a convenience, a status symbol, a signal of having "made it" in the world or of adulthood in general. A lot believe they need a car to function.

The fixed costs of running a car often get rolled into "household bills" and quickly forgotten. Repairs are considered bad luck rather than a cost of travel.

I never forget household bills. Every few months I look for a way to reduce these bills if possible, for example, I have recently downgraded my mobile plan from 100 GB to 60 GB, saving me £2 per month because I came nowhere near the quota for many months. One less pound on bills means one more pound to spend on luxuries.

The most people think about when comparing going by car to rail is the cost of petrol, and they probably underestimate that. No one except the Excel wizards of this world have a per mile figure for car travel. This is why people have such a shock at rail fares.

Also, a lot of the country would need a car to access the railway.

I owned a motorcycle in the past because I wanted convenience in travelling across rural areas. I had a spreadsheet which I filled in every time when I fuelled my motorcycle such that the cost over distance is well known to me, and used it to decide if I would use it or not based on the cost / convenience / discomfort of riding one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Disclaimer : I do own a car, and I see the bills come in seeing how a €80-100 return for Paris (roughly 700km one way) makes sense when I pay €70 for insurance on a month alone

French train fares, with a few exceptions, are much more affordable than UK ones, of course.

But that's relative comparison with train fares, not whether it's affordable at all - they're slightly different questions which can have different answers.

 

[telstarbox]

Around 44% of households in the lowest income quintile had no access to a car, compared to 15% in the highest income quintile.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2024 ==

^ From the 2023 National Travel Survey. https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...sonal-car-access-by-household-income-quintile

So broadly you could say that 9/10 households can afford one. The lowest quintile would include more single people, some of whom are young non-drivers and some are pensioners who maybe can't drive.

Having a car saves time by linking different trip purposes together, which isn't as true for other modes - which can be as worth it as the money side.

 

[The exile]

In the UK the average is 606 per 1000 inhabitant, with Greater London (having the densest public transport) being at 42% car ownership which is in my opinion a pretty good indicator

So 60% have found that a car is affordable (more, actually, since “inhabitants” will include many for whom not owning a car has nothing to do with affordability).

 

[miklcct]

So 60% have found that a car is affordable (more, actually, since “inhabitants” will include many for whom not owning a car has nothing to do with affordability).

I don't agree with you. There are some people who can't afford a car, but still own a car, because they live in rural areas where a car is a necessity. The result is a large debt on them.

 

[notverydeep]

The argument as to whether owning a car is a necessity or luxury kind of misses the truth, which is that there isn't a binary question. It comes down to the choices available to an individual or family. If you live in the centre or inner suburban areas of most major cities, then a combination of public transport (even long distance), walking or cycling, deliveries, occasional use of taxis and hire cars will cover your needs and will almost certainly be the cheapest option if you are single or may be even for family, if all of your employment and education destinations are well connected. For this group a car is not essential. I lived in London (around the zone 3/4 boundary) for 8 years in from my late 20s to late 30s and this was fine.

If you live in outer-suburbs or satellite towns the above may still apply, especially if you are young (expensive car insurance) and / or single and particularly if you are close to shops and travel to the centre of your city for your employment and leisure activities. This is the setting I now live in, and it was only about a year after moving in that I bought a car. I continued to commute for (rail industry) work to the centre of the nearby city by train and still do 18 years later, but now there are children to ferry to activities (particularly in winter, when the walk would be in the dark) and leisure activities that are no longer easily reached by public transport. Journeys to friends and relatives are not as seamless by public transport and much more expensive, even with a family railcard. Then there are camping and self catering holidays. The latter are basically out of the question without a car, with not just clothes but cooking gear, bedding, seats, cuddly toys etc. etc. My children can get to school one by public transport and the other walking, so we could 'get by' without a car, but would be quite limited for leisure and holiday choices.

For many people living in the same satellite town and or in outer suburbs do not work in the easily accessed city centre, but have work destinations that require a wide variety of highly dispersed orbital trips, where many of the frequent and convenient public transport trips are radial. Shift workers will generate at least some very early or very late trips - again many not well served. This will apply to many public transport workers including railway operational staff, which is why many of them describe car ownership as necessary on this forum. IN my early 20s, I did a short stint driving buses, so fell into this group, even living fairly centrally. All of my immediate colleagues in the centrally located office come by public transport and some don't have a car, but when I travel to meetings with colleagues at maintenance depots further out clearly drive, given the large number of vehicles I see parked there.

All the above is before you actually get to country towns and genuinely rural areas, where public transport might just be a very infrequent bus service and a railway station several miles away.

It is pedantically correct to say that we could all chose to be in the first group or accept the limitations of being in the second group without a car - in so much as we could in theory move (say) from rural Wiltshire to somewhere in London's zone 3). However, one of the key features of this forum that must unite most of its members and visitors is that they either work on or have a keen interest the railways or both (and probably much of the rest of public transport). Many of them will even get some kind of discounted travel. And even here there are a fair number of people who acknowledge that their main life style choices (and not just extravagant treats) would not be viable without car ownership. This is despite that car ownership being a non-trivial cost, for me around £1,750 per year over 10 years for all costs including depreciation except insurance for around 6,000 annual miles in a now 15 year old car. This is about as cheap as you can do it and young driver's insurance could be almost as much again, so it isn't a surprise that younger people are more likely to find that living without a car remains their economically rational choice. I have been on both sides of this question...

 

[superkopite]

With an effective public transport, the car ownership drops rapidly

Ex : Switzerland

https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/mobility-transport/transport-infrastructure-vehicles/vehicles/road-vehicles-stock-level-motorisation.html#
In the UK the average is 606 per 1000 inhabitant, with Greater London (having the densest public transport) being at 42% car ownership which is in my opinion a pretty good indicato

Is this really the case, the report you link to seems to show that car ownership has increased 35% in the last 4 years

 

[yorksrob]

As a single person on an average wage, I couldn't afford to run a car and pay a mortgage and have a social life.

And I don't live in London or the South East.

 

[notverydeep]

As a single person on an average wage, I couldn't afford to run a car and pay a mortgage and have a social life.

And I don't live in London or the South East.

I'm not sure how any single person on an average wage can afford to pay a mortgage in London, the South East and a fair number of the larger cities elsewhere, without either having bought somewhere 20 plus years ago or having access to a hefty zero interest loan from the 'Bank of Mum and Dad'...

According to the Office of National Statistics, median gross annual income is £37,430 which is £2400 per month net of Income Tax, National Insurance and a pension contribution of around £140 / month. From this the kind of mortgage that salary might allow could be of the order of £1200 per month - half of the 'disposable' amount. From the rest must come costs like food, energy, broadband, Council Tax, home insurance, public transport season tickets etc. My motoring costs (which don't include commuting) would amount to around 16% of this total buying 500 miles per month, but set against this could be some savings from journeys that a non-car owner would do by Public Transport or deliveries where they might collect directly.

I can see that a person in this situation isn't going to have much spare to spend on holidays and social life, or to make some long term savings and being able to do without a car will free up the income it would have consumed. A young person or risky area premium (or worse both) would add more car insurance than I pay, making it still less affordable. However, if the car were to allow someone to access a job paying around £3,000 per year (net) more, it would have an 'economic case' - that is it would leave that person net better off. The truth is car ownership is a trade off between the costs and the benefits, sensible if it makes your life better, irrational if it does not!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure how any single person on an average wage can afford to pay a mortgage in London, the South East and a fair number of the larger cities elsewhere, without either having bought somewhere 20 plus years ago or having access to a hefty zero interest loan from the 'Bank of Mum and Dad'...

Generally single people in London flat-share. Owning your own place is largely unaffordable. You really need two incomes unless yours is particularly high.

 

[Starmill]

Of course the fact that a private car isn't affordable to be has never changed. I can't afford a thousand in deprecation, insurance and parking every year. The fixed cost of car ownership a year is already about half a year of rail fare.

Even if I put the cheapest ULEZ-compliant fully depreciated car into insurance quotes, the results returned are at least a thousand.

So buying a car is a non-starter as it is too expensive. If the train fare is too expensive, hiring a car isn't an affordable option as well as it will cost around a hundred to hire and drive it for a day.

You've posted endlessly though about using slower routes to gain price advantage in your rail fares bill. I can be confident therefore that there is value in time saved for most people to be added to the other side of the equation, even if you personally were to value your marginal minutes of travel time as near zero. Most people wouldn't spend the time you do to use Southern between Southampton and London on Advance tickets, because it's usually a bad value for money option compared to parking on the edge of London instead. This is a) far more flexible than any Advance tickets b) quicker than travelling via Three Bridges c) costs about the same.

You also suggest regularly that you invest many hours of your time calculating savings and cashback on train tickets. I do that too. But also I recognise that my time lost to doing that isn't worthwhile, and that time would be much more usefully spent learning new skills or working if all I were interested in were money. I'm only really doing the research because it also interests me.

If your argument is a public transport bill of £2k a year is all a car-free household needs I'd say that's totally unrealistic to my needs, I probably spend about three times that (I'm a non car owner currently).

 

[Bletchleyite]

You've posted endlessly though about using slower routes to gain price advantage in your rail fares bill. I can be confident therefore that there is value in time saved for most people to be added to the other side of the equation, even if you personally were to value your marginal minutes of travel time as near zero. You also suggest regularly that you invest many hours of your time calculating savings and cashback on train tickets. I do that too. But also I recognise that my time lost to doing that isn't worthwhile, and that time would be much more usefully spent learning new skills or working if all I were interested in were money. I'm only really doing the research because it also interests me.

If your argument is a public transport bill of £2k a year is all a car-free household needs I'd say that's totally unrealistic to my needs, I probably spend about three times that (I'm a non car owner currently).

I think @miklcct enjoys coming up with their complex public transport solutions. Because otherwise, they are probably the person on here who doesn't have a car that I would most recommend one to, particularly given that their journeys are often with a bicycle which is a royal pain when travelling by rail.

If I was travelling all round the country every couple of weeks to compete in races of various types a car would to me be an absolute non-negotiable essential.

 

[Starmill]

French train fares, with a few exceptions, are much more affordable than UK ones, of course.

But that's relative comparison with train fares, not whether it's affordable at all - they're slightly different questions which can have different answers.

It's hard to value the benefit of avoiding not being permitted to join any train all day on a peak date if the station is gated and you can't get a reservation because every train is "full". Yes, you can waitlist in the app, yes you can beg with the train manager to be allowed to pay the on-board scale, yes you can use a Max Actif subscription and hope you get a standing reservation. But your options really are strictly limited, and having a car makes that all go away. Same goes for 2ende being full and seating available only in 1ere.

 

[miklcct]

You've posted endlessly though about using slower routes to gain price advantage in your rail fares bill. I can be confident therefore that there is value in time saved for most people to be added to the other side of the equation, even if you personally were to value your marginal minutes of travel time as near zero. Most people wouldn't spend the time you do to use Southern between Southampton and London on Advance tickets, because it's usually a bad value for money option compared to parking on the edge of London instead. This is a) far more flexible than any Advance tickets b) quicker than travelling via Three Bridges c) costs about the same.

You also suggest regularly that you invest many hours of your time calculating savings and cashback on train tickets. I do that too. But also I recognise that my time lost to doing that isn't worthwhile, and that time would be much more usefully spent learning new skills or working if all I were interested in were money. I'm only really doing the research because it also interests me.

If your argument is a public transport bill of £2k a year is all a car-free household needs I'd say that's totally unrealistic to my needs, I probably spend about three times that (I'm a non car owner currently).

I admit that I exaggerated a bit in the above post and my real bill now is probably closer to £3k per year because I travel around the region nearly every week to do orienteering races, and my use of Southern Advance tickets to travel between Southampton and Clapham Junction was an extreme cost cutting measure when I lived in Bournemouth when I didn't have a job and travelled to facilities not available locally a few times every week for my sports training. And during the time on the train I developed some software which gained me the skill to land me a job a year later.

And this year I have used Chiltern to travel between London and Birmingham, LNR & Northern to travel between London & Manchester because they are much cheaper than the Intercity operator.

I have already accumulated more than 20000 km of rail journeys this year. If I really have to spend £6k per year in transport without using a car, I would have already bought a car. The reason why I repeatedly say that a car is a luxury because travelling by public transport is much cheaper by avoiding peak hours / certain routes.

I think @miklcct enjoys coming up with their complex public transport solutions. Because otherwise, they are probably the person on here who doesn't have a car that I would most recommend one to, particularly given that their journeys are often with a bicycle which is a royal pain when travelling by rail.

If I was travelling all round the country every couple of weeks to compete in races of various types a car would to me be an absolute non-negotiable essential.

If I have to use a car to travel around the country to do orienteering races, the sport will then become unaffordable to me.

I then have to use a bicycle because otherwise I will have to use rural bus services which runs only every hour / every two hours on a Sunday, or worse, can't travel at all because some rural places don't have a Sunday bus service.

I'm not sure how any single person on an average wage can afford to pay a mortgage in London, the South East and a fair number of the larger cities elsewhere, without either having bought somewhere 20 plus years ago or having access to a hefty zero interest loan from the 'Bank of Mum and Dad'...

I will need a combination of the Bank of Mum, the low cost student loan from the HK Government when I was in university, and the investment returns on my tech stocks bought when I was in uni to do that.

Counting my salary income only before my salary increase this year (I was on £40k) I'm just breaking even with my outgoing (although it contains an expensive sport which I can do without a car - if I have to have a car it will, again, become unaffordable). The rent of my home is £899 / month + electricity + council tax.

I have just got a salary increase and I'm evaluating where I should move to in order to have a better home without being worse off financially (a place where a point to point season ticket is available will help)

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not sure how any single person on an average wage can afford to pay a mortgage in London, the South East and a fair number of the larger cities elsewhere, without either having bought somewhere 20 plus years ago or having access to a hefty zero interest loan from the 'Bank of Mum and Dad'...

Mine was almost twenty years ago and not in a big city, but even now a car is too much.

 

[BingMan]

This is despite that car ownership being a non-trivial cost, for me around £1,750 per year over 10 years for all costs including depreciation except insurance for around 6,000 annual miles in a now 15 year old car. This is about as cheap as you can do it and young driver's insurance could be almost as much again, so it isn't a surprise that younger people are more likely to find that living without a car remains their economically rational choice. I have been on both sides of this question...

I regard the initial outlay of £4000 and the £1700 pounds that I spent on motoring for the last year to be money well spent even though driving is always my third choice after train and bus.
The convenience of being able to move bulky/heavy objects and of being able to travel after the buses have stopped, and being able to take my bikes on holiday, is priceless.

As for hiring as an alterative to public transport you need public transport to get to the car hire office.

 

[miklcct]

As for hiring as an alterative to public transport you need public transport to get to the car hire office.

A car club membership which has cars in strategic locations will help.

 

[Meole]

Cars have never been cheaper relative to wages and generally are far more reliable, most young people lease their new car and never experience the fun with spark plugs, distributor, brake pads, oil filter etc that some of endured with our much used rust bucket bargains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cars have never been cheaper relative to wages

I don't think that's actually true now. It probably was in 2019, though. There have been significant price rises since then.

 

[Joe Paxton]

Yes. It offers that option which I ranked the last. A private car is luxury which is never under consideration if you want to save money.

The first thing that came to mind when I read that is the common response you get from many who, upon the option of travelling by train being mentioned, often consider it (or indeed dismiss it) as being an exorbitantly expensive choice. Yes it's likely they only irregularly travellers by train, if at all - but this isn't some extreme viewpoint held by a few people. It's an opinion often combined / conflated with regarding train fares as being too complicated.

If it's appropriate I do my best to challenge that viewpoint, and perhaps even try and explain some of the different types of tickets - so often there is a muddled understanding at best of how the system works (e.g. the often entrenched belief that buying in advance always saves money - particularly from one particular online retailer - even though the prospective passenger actually wants a flexible ticket).

I don't think that's actually true now. It probably was in 2019, though. There have been significant price rises since then.

Indeed there have been (see for example the second hand market) - plus a good number of people's wages have declined in real terms over recent years.

 

[stuu]

Of course the fact that a private car isn't affordable to be has never changed. I can't afford a thousand in deprecation, insurance and parking every year. The fixed cost of car ownership a year is already about half a year of rail fare.

Even if I put the cheapest ULEZ-compliant fully depreciated car into insurance quotes, the results returned are at least a thousand.

The second year, assuming you don't have any crashes or theft, it will go down significantly, 30-40% less. My car insurance is less than £300 per year, or less than £1 per day. With an oldish car costing about £100 per month, paid for with an interest-free credit card, and allowing £500 for maintenance a year, it costs me ~£5.50 per day to have a car. That's not really very much, certainly not unaffordable to most people. That's less than two coffees

 

[miklcct]

The second year, assuming you don't have any crashes or theft, it will go down significantly, 30-40% less. My car insurance is less than £300 per year, or less than £1 per day. With an oldish car costing about £100 per month, paid for with an interest-free credit card, and allowing £500 for maintenance a year, it costs me ~£5.50 per day to have a car. That's not really very much, certainly not unaffordable to most people. That's less than two coffees

The first year is unaffordable. Because the first year is unaffordable, I never buy a car in the first place. The second year doesn't come because there is never the first year. So it remains unaffordable.