Models for the cost of car ownership

[Bletchleyite]

Difficult to argue with someone - one of many - who thinks that the only cost of travelling by car is the fuel.

From https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/what-the-split-ticketing-sites-don’t-tell-you-the-seat-may-not-be-the-same-for-the-journey.220737/#post-5252641

I've explained many times that that (or close to it, taking into account a tiny sum for tyre/brake wear/servicing*) is a perfectly valid model and the one used by most people, either formally or informally. Modelling as a per-mile rate for the full cost of the car is not the only valid model. Much, much more common is modelling the fixed costs as a monthly/annual cost of "membership" in the "club" of car ownership and journeys at marginal cost.

Once the railway gets this into its thick skull and offers comparable models, such as a National Railcard, they might get more people out of cars.

* Most modern cars have service intervals of 20,000 miles/1 year, which means it's a fixed annual cost for the vast majority of drivers. Regarding tyres, I tend to keep cars for 3-5 years and in that time I'll usually get one full set of new tyres, and so adding a marginal extra journey doesn't affect spend. Brake linings are very cheap, particularly if you can DIY them. Clutches don't generally need replacing these days unless you drive badly, e.g. excess slipping or riding the clutch.

 

[jthjth]

I have made Stockport to Plymouth first class on several occasions on a split ticket (7 sections). Although the seat reservations varied between legs I just stayed in the first seat the whole way without any trouble. There were so many unreserved seats that nobody seemed inclined to ask me to move.

(Which reminds me of an incident in Germany many years ago. |I was staying in a climbing hostel and was given a bed in a 50 bunk dormitory. My German being wretched I didn't understand the number so I just slumped into the nearest bunk. At midnight I was shaken awake by a furious German who insisted that I was in his bed and that I move to one of the other 49)


Difficult to argue with someone - one of many - who thinks that the only cost of travelling by car is the fuel.

I've explained many times that that (or close to it, taking into account a tiny sum for tyre/brake wear) is a perfectly valid model and the one used by most people. Modelling as a per-mile rate for the full cost of the car is not the only valid model. Much, much more common is modelling the fixed costs as a monthly/annual cost of "membership" in the "club" of car ownership and journeys at marginal cost.

Once the railway gets this into its thick skull and offers comparable models, such as a National Railcard, they might get more people out of cars.

With all possible discounts, ie splitting and using a two together rail card, in standard class my journey comes to around £180 for the two of us.

Even if I double my fuel cost of £70, to account for other costs, I still don’t get to £180.

Now I consider my car to be more akin to travelling first class, I get comfortable seats, privacy and quiet, and crucially I’m not tied to a particular time. So my journey, which we are doing first class is £340.

This is very much more than the fuel cost, and any other cost you might think needs adding in for an equitable comparison. Furthermore, the car journey is marginally quicker. Once two of you are travelling the train becomes very expensive.

 

[bspahh]

I've explained many times that that (or close to it, taking into account a tiny sum for tyre/brake wear/servicing*) is a perfectly valid model and the one used by most people, either formally or informally. Modelling as a per-mile rate for the full cost of the car is not the only valid model. Much, much more common is modelling the fixed costs as a monthly/annual cost of "membership" in the "club" of car ownership and journeys at marginal cost.

Once the railway gets this into its thick skull and offers comparable models, such as a National Railcard, they might get more people out of cars.

* Most modern cars have service intervals of 20,000 miles/1 year, which means it's a fixed annual cost for the vast majority of drivers. Regarding tyres, I tend to keep cars for 3-5 years and in that time I'll usually get one full set of new tyres, and so adding a marginal extra journey doesn't affect spend. Brake linings are very cheap, particularly if you can DIY them. Clutches don't generally need replacing these days unless you drive badly, e.g. excess slipping or riding the clutch.

You also need to consider depreciation. One way is to compare prices with a leased car, where you never own it, and can work out the pence per mile.

Depreciation is higher with a newish car, but even for one that is ~ 3-10 years old, driving 1000 miles will typically take about 1% off its value. At the point when you decide the car has depreciated to nothing, then its worth spending money on repairs, if it still does the things you need it to do, and if its cheaper than the depreciation on a newer replacement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You also need to consider depreciation. One way is to compare prices with a leased car, where you never own it, and can work out the pence per mile.

Depreciation is higher with a newish car, but even for one that is ~ 3-10 years old, driving 1000 miles will typically take about 1% off its value. At the point when you decide the car has depreciated to nothing, then its worth spending money on repairs, if it still does the things you need it to do, and if its cheaper than the depreciation on a newer replacement.

That isn't how people usually think of it either. Personally the cost of car purchase for me is the monthly personal loan payment - again a "membership fee" component. A bit of residual value at the end of that to chuck into the next one is a bonus. No, it's not a perfect model, but a key element of my point is that it doesn't need to be.

For those who buy new on PCP that is even more pronounced, as it's effectively a lease of sorts. Most people who buy on PCP never pay the "balloon payment" at the end, they hand it back and get another new car. If you're going to pay that in many cases you'll be better off with an unsecured personal loan for the full value and effectively paying "cash".

 

[cactustwirly]

You also need to consider depreciation. One way is to compare prices with a leased car, where you never own it, and can work out the pence per mile.

Depreciation is higher with a newish car, but even for one that is ~ 3-10 years old, driving 1000 miles will typically take about 1% off its value. At the point when you decide the car has depreciated to nothing, then its worth spending money on repairs, if it still does the things you need it to do, and if its cheaper than the depreciation on a newer replacement.

Depreciation is difficult to measure though. Especially now that used car prices are actually increasing.

This is driven by a huge demand for cars, and a global chip shortage halting the production of new cars

 

[37424]

Depreciation is difficult to measure though. Especially now that used car prices are actually increasing.

This is driven by a huge demand for cars, and a global chip shortage halting the production of new cars

The increase in used car prices is bizarre the trade in value of my car appears now to be more than I paid for it 3 months ago!

 

[Factotum]

With all possible discounts, ie splitting and using a two together rail card, in standard class my journey comes to around £180 for the two of us.

Even if I double my fuel cost of £70, to account for other costs, I still don’t get to £180.

Now I consider my car to be more akin to travelling first class, I get comfortable seats, privacy and quiet, and crucially I’m not tied to a particular time. So my journey, which we are doing first class is £340.

This is very much more than the fuel cost, and any other cost you might think needs adding in for an equitable comparison. Furthermore, the car journey is marginally quicker. Once two of you are travelling the train becomes very expensive.

But when travelling by train you do not have the stress of and risk of driving and can do useful things like reading. That is worth a great deal to me.
And if the marginal cost is so low why would my employer , not renown for his generosity, reimburse my exactly £180 for that journey

 

[thejuggler]

I changed my car last October and to satisfy my interest I made an estimate of total running costs. I ran it for over 5 years and did about 50,000 miles. 5,000 to 55,000 miles.

Total cost including depreciation of £10k was 50p per mile.

One full set of tyres, front brake pads and wiper blades, were the only extras over annual servicing costs, MOT, insurance and fuel.

 

[Factotum]

The increase in used car prices is bizarre the trade in value of my car appears now to be more than I paid for it 3 months ago!

Nothing bizarre about it. Just Adam Smith's "invisible hand" at work. There are sixty year old cars which were bought for a few thousand selling now for seven figure sums.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But when travelling by train you do not have the stress of and risk of driving and can do useful things like reading. That is worth a great deal to me.

Which is fair enough. I too consider train travel to be worth more than car travel in most cases for similar reasons. But not everybody does. And there's the question of how much extra - I would certainly drive over paying InterCity Anytime fares which I consider outrageous.

And if the marginal cost is so low why would my employer , not renown for his generosity, reimburse my exactly £180 for that journey

The 45p HMRC rate includes a contribution to all aspects of car use including fixed costs of ownership, the principle being that it's an alternative to them having to provide you a hire car as they'd have to if you didn't own one. The 25p rate you move onto after 10K miles is more reflective of marginal costs. Obviously these are fixed values based on an average vehicle but actual costs vary by vehicle.

I changed my car last October and to satisfy my interest I made an estimate of total running costs. I ran it for over 5 years and did about 50,000 miles. 5,000 to 55,000 miles.

Total cost including depreciation of £10k was 50p per mile.

One full set of tyres, front brake pads and wiper blades, were the only extras over annual servicing costs, MOT, insurance and fuel.

...highlighted by this!

 

[Factotum]

I changed my car last October and to satisfy my interest I made an estimate of total running costs. I ran it for over 5 years and did about 50,000 miles. 5,000 to 55,000 miles.

Total cost including depreciation of £10k was 50p per mile.

One full set of tyres, front brake pads and wiper blades, were the only extras over annual servicing costs, MOT, insurance and fuel.

I have just scrapped a car I bought 11 years ago and which did about 5000 miles every year. On top of the purchase price of £6000 it cost about £1000 a year to run. About 30p a mile.

The model you use in comparing travel prices is dependent on whether you have to have a car, or whether you can do all your travelling by public transport, taxi or hire car.
In the first instant marginal costs, fuel and wear, are the correct yardstick.
In the second one has to use the full lifetime costs for the comparison.

But one can't price the intangibles: one one side not having to risk ones life and sanity in a car; on the other the convenience of setting your own start time. But since car travel times are so unpredictable not your arrival time. When I go to an appointment by car I usually end up kicking my heels in the waiting room for some time.

 

[cactustwirly]

But when travelling by train you do not have the stress of and risk of driving and can do useful things like reading. That is worth a great deal to me.
And if the marginal cost is so low why would my employer , not renown for his generosity, reimburse my exactly £180 for that journey

I don't think driving is stressful, I quite enjoy it actually.
I find that commuting to work is significantly cheaper and faster door to door by car.

 

[87 027]

But when travelling by train you do not have the stress of and risk of driving and can do useful things like reading.

Whether driving or travelling by train I tend to listen to podcasts so one is not substantially less conducive to worthwhile use of time than the other.

When travelling from north west England to the suburbs of south east London, setting off in the early evening, the door-to-door journey time is surprisingly evenly matched. True, Avanti can whisk me to Euston in comfort and at speed, but then there is the tube transfer to London Bridge, followed by a suburban metro service (not always an entirely pleasant experience in that part of the world later in the evening) and finally a bus for the final 1.5 miles should I not fancy a 20 minute uphill walk at the end of it all.

When I lived on my own I didn't have a car but once young children enter onto the scene the practical constraints of dependency on public transport and/or taxis start to present themselves in a more pressing fashion and a car becomes a very attractive option. After that, the car vs. train financial consideration does tend to boil down to a comparison of direct fuel and road tolls against the fare costs because the other largely fixed costs of car ownership are sunk whether or not the car is used for that particular journey.

There are also lots of intangible considerations. In a car, there is no need to worry about other passengers tutting and grumbling about noise and complaining that kids are taking up seats etc. etc.

 

[The Ham]

Whatever the model, few actually know the full costs of their car ownership (clearly some do).

Due instance is amusing to watch when people say "it costs me £1 in petrol to get to work, why would I pay £4 for the bus?" When the season ticket for that bus makes it much cheaper per trip and they are typically paying a lot of other costs.

Now whilst it's not always going to be the case that is cheaper to use public transport (for instance if they do a lot of other travel), the comparison is often flawed.

Given that the average cost of car ownership is over £3,000/year and few cab get it less than £1,500/year without hardly using it and/or doing all their own maintenance (both of which are outliers, much in the same way as someone who pays for main dealer servicing on a 18 year old car).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think driving is stressful, I quite enjoy it actually.
I find that commuting to work is significantly cheaper and faster door to door by car.

I find the type of driving differs. To me commuting by car is stressful, you're tired if it's a long commute due to the early start and invariably no fun in the traffic either. Whereas driving on the open road is enjoyable. True of rail of course too - I can't see me wanting to return to daily commuting of any kind, to be honest, having worked from home for 7 years. A day or two a week in an office yes, but not all 5. Only exception would be if I could commute by bicycle or on foot taking no more than about half an hour and no big hills.

Whatever the model, few actually know the full costs of their car ownership (clearly some do).

Due instance is amusing to watch when people say "it costs me £1 in petrol to get to work, why would I pay £4 for the bus?" When the season ticket for that bus makes it much cheaper per trip and they are typically paying a lot of other costs.

Now whilst it's not always going to be the case that is cheaper to use public transport (for instance if they do a lot of other travel), the comparison is often flawed.

Given that the average cost of car ownership is over £3,000/year and few cab get it less than £1,500/year without hardly using it and/or doing all their own maintenance (both of which are outliers, much in the same way as someone who pays for main dealer servicing on a 18 year old car).

But that was my whole point. Most people, if they even think about it, consider that owning a car costs £X per month/year, and then each journey costs the fuel. Obviously it costs a tiny amount extra for brake/tyre wear but that is negligible. So that is a valid model.

Comparing the full per-mile cost of each only makes sense if you are deciding whether to go without a car entirely. My car use is (outside of a pandemic) very low, I've not worked it out but I reckon you'd get to a per-mile of over £1, but that doesn't really make a sensible comparison - I see it as it costs £N per month for the convenience of car ownership, and because my mileage is quite low a journey pretty much is only marginal on the fuel.

 

[miklcct]

Whether driving or travelling by train I tend to listen to podcasts so one is not substantially less conducive to worthwhile use of time than the other.

When travelling from north west England to the suburbs of south east London, setting off in the early evening, the door-to-door journey time is surprisingly evenly matched. True, Avanti can whisk me to Euston in comfort and at speed, but then there is the tube transfer to London Bridge, followed by a suburban metro service (not always an entirely pleasant experience in that part of the world later in the evening) and finally a bus for the final 1.5 miles should I not fancy a 20 minute uphill walk at the end of it all.

When I lived on my own I didn't have a car but once young children enter onto the scene the practical constraints of dependency on public transport and/or taxis start to present themselves in a more pressing fashion and a car becomes a very attractive option. After that, the car vs. train financial consideration does tend to boil down to a comparison of direct fuel and road tolls against the fare costs because the other largely fixed costs of car ownership are sunk whether or not the car is used for that particular journey.

There are also lots of intangible considerations. In a car, there is no need to worry about other passengers tutting and grumbling about noise and complaining that kids are taking up seats etc. etc.

For me, travelling by public transport is stressful because I look at the timetable and my watch frequently, especially when the vehicle is approaching my alighting stop where I need to make a transfer.

One of the places I lived in the past was a rural area. There was no express bus direct to city (with a few different routes making ~10 stops on slow roads before entering the motorway, which I could only tolerate in early morning or late night when the likelihood of actually stopping was low), therefore the fastest way to city was to take an express feeder service to a train station and take a train there. That express feeder service ran on a 70 km/h road and took 3 minutes only to travel the 1.5 km between my home and the train station. If the connection went well, taking public transport was both cheaper and faster than driving to the city (because the train was fast), so a car was out of consideration. However, a major problem in the feeder service was that, it ran on 10-12 minutes headway to the railway station, but on a 30 minutes headway back, because it was a loop line with different headways in the two directions.

When I was returning, I had to time my departure carefully such that I could take that feeder service without waiting, and make sure that I'm on schedule on the whole trip. If I missed that feeder service, I had to wait for half an hour for the bus to complete a loop, or pay to take a taxi.

Eventually the stress of commuting lead to health problem on me, and I left the job and moved away from the place.

 

[The Ham]

But that was my whole point. Most people, if they even think about it, consider that owning a car costs £X per month/year, and then each journey costs the fuel. Obviously it costs a tiny amount extra for brake/tyre wear but that is negligible. So that is a valid model.

Comparing the full per-mile cost of each only makes sense if you are deciding whether to go without a car entirely. My car use is (outside of a pandemic) very low, I've not worked it out but I reckon you'd get to a per-mile of over £1, but that doesn't really make a sensible comparison - I see it as it costs £N per month for the convenience of car ownership, and because my mileage is quite low a journey pretty much is only marginal on the fuel

Which is where car clubs become useful, as (although not fixed each month) you can have access to a car when you need it without the upfront costs.

However the point I was making was that many "need" a car for work and so have two cars and justify it on the cost of the fuel only.

In reality they could use the bus (or even cycle, especially with the use of an e-bike) and save enough that they could use taxis for the rest of their travel (or even on days it's particularly wet and/or cold).

If you're costs were Insurance £300, VED £140, MOT & service £100, fuel £500 (circa 5,000 miles, although likely less) £40 on tyres, £20 on parking (a few day trips could be this much) and £600 on purchase costs, then even if your bus ticket cost you £1,000 then you've got £700 for other travel costs.

Even if you spend £400 traveling London/Manchester four times a year (about 1/4 of all your travel, with no Railcard discount on off peak open return travel), then for most that's 8 miles each way for work and no other travel and so £300 that you could use for taxis.

In reality most would be paying more than that little on their car costs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In reality they could use the bus (or even cycle, especially with the use of an e-bike) and save enough that they could use taxis for the rest of their travel (or even on days it's particularly wet and/or cold).

They could, but I personally prefer to have a car. This is the other point people miss. A car is almost certainly not, by a quite considerable margin, the cheapest solution to my transport needs. But I want one, and I can afford it, so I have one.

 

[miklcct]

They could, but I personally prefer to have a car. This is the other point people miss. A car is almost certainly not, by a quite considerable margin, the cheapest solution to my transport needs. But I want one, and I can afford it, so I have one.

A car is unaffordable to a significant portion of city population because parking is unaffordable. A monthly parking space in a city can easily cost £200+.

If you're costs were Insurance £300, VED £140, MOT & service £100, fuel £500 (circa 5,000 miles, although likely less) £40 on tyres, £20 on parking (a few day trips could be this much) and £600 on purchase costs, then even if your bus ticket cost you £1,000 then you've got £700 for other travel costs.

£20 on parking - that's a huge understatement! Have you included the monthly parking for your home or office?

 

[Bletchleyite]

A car is unaffordable to a significant portion of city population because parking is unaffordable. A monthly parking space in a city can easily cost £200+.

I don't live in a city centre, and nor does the vast majority of the rest of the UK's population.

£20 on parking - that's a huge understatement! Have you included the monthly parking for your home or office?

What monthly parking for home? £0 for most people. A few need a Council on street permit but these are typically less than £100 per year.

 

[miklcct]

What monthly parking for home? £0 for most people.

You are lucky to find that in a city.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You are lucky to find that in a city.

You will find that very easily in most of the UK. A few places have Council issued permits for on-street parking, which typically cost under £100 pa (often well under that, about £25 is fairly common to cover admin costs), these generally exist only where there is a desire from residents to have them to prevent the spaces being used by e.g. commuters at the nearby station avoiding paying for the station car park.

Only in city centres, where most people in the UK don't live, is residential parking typically expensive. And as with pretty much every other area of life if it's in London it costs a bit more

The sprawl of extended city centres with most people living in blocks of flats that you get in HK and China simply doesn't exist in the UK outside London (and even most of London is terraced and semi detached housing, not those). You typically have a compact city centre, usually walled in by a 1960s ring road, and most of what's beyond it is terraced housing and then suburban semi-detached sprawl.

 

[gg1]

You are lucky to find that in a city.

I'd say you're unlucky NOT to is closer to the truth.

I've spent my entire life living in cites or major conurbations in various parts of the country (though never in London or the South East) and have never lived at an address where on street parking is anything other than free. Even widening it to friends and family, I don't personally know anyone who pays for anything beyond the relatively cheap annual residential parking permits Bletchleyite mentions.

 

[miklcct]

terraced housing and then suburban semi-detached sprawl

in a city?! That's not my idea what a city should look like. A city in my mind means high rise buildings over a few dozens of square kilometres of land, an underground running under it, shops every street, 24/7 restaurants, infinite entertainment opportunities, and people on the street even at 3 am.

Terraced housing is what I think of rural areas where everyone has a car, who drive to the supermarket in town every week and buy a week worth of groceries back home, with only a school, a church, a convenience store which actually closes at night, and nothing else, and no one will know if you have died in your home. Terraced housing should have no place in a city because property developers will want to convert them into high rise buildings in order to make more profit, as land supply in a city is limited and demand will only ever grow unless there is a recession.

I'd say you're unlucky NOT to is closer to the truth.

I've spent my entire life living in cites or major conurbations in various parts of the country (though never in London or the South East) and have never lived anywhere where on street parking is anything other than free. Even widening it to friends and family, I don't personally know anyone who pays for anything beyond the relatively cheap annual residential parking permits Bletchleyite mentions.

Nowhere outside of London in the UK actually have a job market where career growth happens. Not even Edinburgh. I really regret living (outside London) and I will move as soon as I find a job in London, and I will only look in London for a job. It is hard to become unemployed in London as there are so many job opportunities, but if you live in a rural area, you will be lucky to find a job within commutable area by public transport. In fact many people are having trouble finding jobs because public transport does not run at the time they need to get to their prospective jobs.

 

[plugwash]

But since car travel times are so unpredictable not your arrival time. When I go to an appointment by car I usually end up kicking my heels in the waiting room for some time.

While public transport does notionally have a timetable, if your apointment is in any way important you will have to add a buffer with public transport too. Advance tickets add further buffer requirements because you have to add buffers at both the start (to make sure you don't miss your booked train) and end (to make sure you don't miss your appointment) of the rail part of your your journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

in a city?! That's not my idea what a city should look like. A city in my mind means high rise buildings over a few dozens of square kilometres of land, an underground running under it, shops every street, 24/7 restaurants, infinite entertainment opportunities, and people on the street even at 3 am.

Then the UK doesn't have any cities by your definition

Even London is in most parts not a 24 hour city. In fact I've been out with friends in London and actually headed back to MK to find a pub (rather than a club or bar with loud music) open past the traditional 11:20!

Terraced housing is what I think of rural areas where everyone has a car, who drive to the supermarket in town every week and buy a week worth of groceries back home, with only a school, a church, a convenience store which actually closes at night, and nothing else, and no one will know if you have died in your home. Terraced housing should have no place in a city because property developers will want to convert them into high rise buildings in order to make more profit, as land supply in a city is limited and demand will only ever grow unless there is a recession.

This thread is not about what should be, but what is. And that's how most UK towns and cities are. This is not Asia, it is the UK.

By the way you can park for free in suburbs of other European cities too. Milan is surprisingly easy for example.

Nowhere outside of London in the UK actually have a job market where career growth happens. Not even Edinburgh. I really regret living (outside London) and I will move as soon as I find a job in London, and I will only look in London for a job. It is hard to become unemployed in London as there are so many job opportunities, but if you live in a rural area, you will be lucky to find a job within commutable area by public transport. In fact many people are having trouble finding jobs because public transport does not run at the time they need to get to their prospective jobs.

Commuting? How quaint. I think you'll find COVID has rather changed all that, and it wasn't 100% true anyway - for instance, if you want to work in certain areas of academic research, pick a red-brick university town.

By the way, there's even free parking in London if you look for it, and residential parking tends to be by Council Permit on street which are not generally expensive. Central London no, but again most people don't live in central London. City centre dwelling is a minority pursuit in the UK (though there's more of it than there was in say the 80s when there was near enough none at all). If you're not a fan, perhaps you don't want to be looking to London, but rather outside of the UK entirely.

 

[cactustwirly]

You will find that very easily in most of the UK. A few places have Council issued permits for on-street parking, which typically cost under £100 pa (often well under that, about £25 is fairly common to cover admin costs), these generally exist only where there is a desire from residents to have them to prevent the spaces being used by e.g. commuters at the nearby station avoiding paying for the station car park.

Only in city centres, where most people in the UK don't live, is residential parking typically expensive. And as with pretty much every other area of life if it's in London it costs a bit more

The sprawl of extended city centres with most people living in blocks of flats that you get in HK and China simply doesn't exist in the UK outside London (and even most of London is terraced and semi detached housing, not those). You typically have a compact city centre, usually walled in by a 1960s ring road, and most of what's beyond it is terraced housing and then suburban semi-detached sprawl.

My parking permit is £150 per year

 

[johncrossley]

in a city?! That's not my idea what a city should look like. A city in my mind means high rise buildings over a few dozens of square kilometres of land, an underground running under it, shops every street, 24/7 restaurants, infinite entertainment opportunities, and people on the street even at 3 am.

You set an extremely high bar. No such cities exist in Europe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My parking permit is £150 per year

They do vary a bit, that I think is towards the upper end for Councils. £200/month is unheard of, though.

You set an extremely high bar. No such cities exist in Europe.

Indeed, it seems @miklcct's definition of a city is very much Asian megacities. Even most US cities are down to houses rather than flats not an excessively long way out.

 

[Aictos]

What monthly parking for home? £0 for most people. A few need a Council on street permit but these are typically less than £100 per year.

Not so, as been proven above in post #27.

They do vary a bit, that I think is towards the upper end for Councils. £200/month is unheard of, though.

You obviously haven't heard of Merton Council in London then as they charge £540 per vehicle per year plus £150 levy for all diesel and older petrol models which brings the cost of a on street permit to £690 so to claim that £200 is unheard of isn't accurate.