Should taking a train be cheaper than driving a car?

[HSTEd]

Perhaps in the BR era infrastructure was done on a rather..... extemporised basis, but we seem to have gone far too far the other way now.
Railway apparently has no capability to cost control or resist scope creep, and the overly contracted out nature of the railway means even small modifications cost enormous sums.

Honestly mass deployment of busways would be a good way to get non road dependant public transport to huge numbers of people at a fraction fo the cost of rail.
Even if you go for full blown South American style BRT.

Or even 3S cableways between a town and surrounding villages.

 

[paulmch]

Devil's advocate here: driving should be more expensive than the train instead, either through increased fuel duty or some sort of mileage pricing. If driving was made less appealing to the extent that everyone switched one journey a week onto public transport, the level of extra money available to improve services would skyrocket.

 

[Ianno87]

The really expensive rail tickets are for people who want to travel at peak hours, and for whom booking in advance is inconvenient (or there are no available seats). In such circumstances, a standard class return from Liverpool to London would cost £ 334. Only millionaires - or people on expense accounts could afford to travel by train. And driving by car is always going to be much cheaper, even allowing for city centre parking charges.

Who are these people with "expense accounts?" Do they carry them with their briefcase and filofax like it's the 1980s, with a copy of the FT tucked under their arm?

Both of my employers you book tickets through a TrainLine-esque website. Which any employee of any grade can use for business-related travel.

 

[Ianigsy]

Nobody ever seems to factor in the cost of their own labour when driving either, which at minimum wage rates would still put about £30 each way on a trip from London to Manchester.

 

[Dr Hoo]

'Driving', when seen as just the cost of the fuel, will always appear to be cheap. In future for people who just plug their electric car to charge at home even this cost will 'disappear' or at least be 'invisible'. Unlike some on this forum most people don't spend their entire lives hacking away on personal financial spreadsheets.

The recently published ORR statistical compendium shows that in 2019-20 some £11.6 billion of "fares and passenger income" bought 66.7 billion passenger km of travel. Without getting bogged down on the precise definition of income this works out at around 17pence/km (or around 28 pence/mile). Plenty of sources will tell you that this is well under the cost of owning and running a typical car and that's before you've paid to park it, have it washed an so on.

The underlying question is whether 'the taxpayer' should subsidise the financial illiteracy of most of the population by supporting rail travel even beyond the billions of £££ poured in hitherto so that it appears to be cheaper than driving.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The underlying question is whether 'the taxpayer' should subsidise the financial illiteracy of most of the population by supporting rail travel even beyond the billions of £££ poured in hitherto so that it appears to be cheaper than driving.

Not this again.

It is a perfectly valid, and not "financially illiterate", way of accounting for the cost of a car, to account the fixed costs (purchase, most of the depreciation unless you do a very high mileage, servicing as for most cars it's just annual at typical mileages etc) as a subscription to a lifestyle choice, and only the genuinely variable costs (for most people just fuel plus a tiny amount for brake lining replacements and any parking) accounted to each journey.

Do you have a Railcard? Do you account it onto each journey, or do you consider it an annual subscription for cheaper rail travel? I would venture that basically everyone considers it the latter.

And this is why I favour the National Railcard model; it allows rail to fit into the same cost model as a car does, rather than the fallacy of trying to make people account journeys at 45p a mile, which regardless of how business expenses work is simply never going to happen.

 

[Wynd]

28p/mile is remarkably close to where I would have guestimated a reasonable flat rate should be. I was thinking 20p, but sure, 28p.

One thing I don't understand is why the rail companies are not chasing every possible sale going.

Pricing customers off of certain trains and in to other modes is in my view leaving money on the table. Why would any private company do this? Isn't the very nature of capitalism to maximise sales and profits where possible?

If revenue were fully maximised, would we not witness falling public subsidy? Then again, is the ECML operator not proving that the government can reduce subsidy by taking fare revenue itself...?

 

[Metal_gee_man]

The British road taxation system is broken, I can buy a very uninspiring Citroën (yes french) C3 or DS3 diesel, pay no road tax on it like a EV and pay tax on the fuel only but so do the French, if it cost €35 on Toll motorways in France to travel from Lyon to Paris and the same in return the UK tax man would be rubbing his hands together due to the number of journeys made in the UK.

We all hate the idea of telematics and GPS tracking (I.E price per mile charging) but its the only way to stop the high UK car usage. Hit the driver in the pocket and accordingly reinvest those high CO2 taxes somewhere useful in low carbon transport

 

[route101]

I dont have a car at the moment. The start up costs are high if your bit skint. Buying a car and insuring it, to get a decent car would at least be a few thousand quid. Once you have a car etc , its cheaper in the long run.

Whereas I could buy a train ticket as a one off.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Pricing customers off of certain trains and in to other modes is in my view leaving money on the table. Why would any private company do this? Isn't the very nature of capitalism to maximise sales and profits where possible?

At the risks of (a) going off at a tangent and (b) acting as if I'm looking for a fight, that's not the nature of capitalism. A private company run in line with classical economic theory will look to maximise the return on capital. That might mean selling more - but if the cost of earning the last pound in sales is ten pounds, then you're not going to maximise your sales because doing so will reduce your profit. And much the same argument can be applied to profit: if you can get a better return by sticking the money in the building society then you won't bother taking the risk of trading.

Of course, very few companies are run exactly in line with theory. Owners and managers have other motivations other than making the best possible return. Maybe the owner likes running a railway company. Maybe they want to keep their staff in jobs. Maybe they don't want to squeeze passengers on as if in cattle trucks but provide a quality service. Maybe (and so on).

 

[Bletchleyite]

The aim of pricing people off busy trains is that they will instead take quieter ones (or if it's really important you'll cough up). It might cause some to use other modes, but it often (particularly when going to London) won't.

 

[Llanigraham]

The British road taxation system is broken, I can buy a very uninspiring Citroën (yes french) C3 or DS3 diesel, pay no road tax on it like a EV and pay tax on the fuel only but so do the French, if it cost €35 on Toll motorways in France to travel from Lyon to Paris and the same in return the UK tax man would be rubbing his hands together due to the number of journeys made in the UK.

We all hate the idea of telematics and GPS tracking (I.E price per mile charging) but its the only way to stop the high UK car usage. Hit the driver in the pocket and accordingly reinvest those high CO2 taxes somewhere useful in low carbon transport

Great in urban areas, but what are you going to do for rural dwellers who have no public transport of any type?

 

[Harpers Tate]

In an ideal world the train would always ideally be cheaper (sometimes it is but often it isn’t) but you’re negating to include the ‘hidden costs’ of car ownership which include but are not limited to:

- Parking
- Insurance (it’s not cheap for everyone!)
- Distance vs Time
- Fuel
- Emissions tax
- MOT and Maintenance
- Sobriety
- Amount of travellers

For example it might be cheaper for a person to drive from London to Manchester by car then an on the day train ticket, but in the same argument you could also buy a £1 mega bus ticket and travel for several hours and go via Birmingham. At what cost does a person value your own time?

I don't disagree as a matter of absolute fact, but then the transport situation nationally (possibly excluding parts of London and the South East and maybe a few other tight urban areas) is such that for many, car ownership is close to being a necessity. If we work on that basis, then you can EXclude the "fixed" costs that would arise whether it was used or stayed at home:

- Insurance (well much of it anyway; mileage only accounts for a small part of the overall premium)
- MOT and maintenance (again - much of it)
- other fixed/annual costs such as VED
- depreciation (much of it is age related rather than mileage related)

And as to "amount of travellers" - a car will carry 4 or 5 for no material increase in cost over one. Try doing that by any form of public transport.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm a little concerned by the number of people here who are desperate to increase public transport use by driving up the cost of private transport.

Which will achieve nothing but further crush the mobility of the poor, whilst the rich will just pay whatever you want for the convenience.

We should focus instead of providing a public transport service that people actually want to use, and which is as cheap to passengers as possible!
If we had metro and high intensity bus systems all over the place, people wouldn't want to drive

EDIT:

Just to make a point, ONS suggests the operating cost of a bus service is about £3.90 per bus-mile.
There are 246,000 miles of paved road in Great Britain.

Let's suggest running 4 buses per hour, 18 hours per day, 365 days a year. That is 26,280 buses per year.
That is about £25.2 billion, or about £50.4bn if the buses go both ways.

Even if we ran four buses an hour, 18 hours a day, down every single paved road in Great Britain, we would only spend about £50.4bn a year, which is only 2.32% of GDP.
Oh and that assumes that the buses are free.

Given how much of the road mileage is in urban areas, even doing it for half the road mileage would make a huge difference and crush car traffic - for 1.16% of GDP.

 

[6Gman]

28p/mile is remarkably close to where I would have guestimated a reasonable flat rate should be. I was thinking 20p, but sure, 28p.

One thing I don't understand is why the rail companies are not chasing every possible sale going.

Pricing customers off of certain trains and in to other modes is in my view leaving money on the table. Why would any private company do this? Isn't the very nature of capitalism to maximise sales and profits where possible?

If revenue were fully maximised, would we not witness falling public subsidy? Then again, is the ECML operator not proving that the government can reduce subsidy by taking fare revenue itself...?

Because rather than attracting new custom your reduced price might simply abstract revenue from existing customers willing to pay the higher price. (Or, more likely, the losses from abstraction would be higher than the gains from new custom)

There is an old business saying - Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity.

And bear in mind that pre-Covid many TOCs were heavily criticised for overcrowded trains.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

Great in urban areas, but what are you going to do for rural dwellers who have no public transport of any type?

Travelling on rural roads could be a matter of 1p per mile based on the lack of bus or train service, 3p per mile lets say on B roads, 5p per mile on non trunk road A roads, 8p per mile on major A road trunk roads and then 10p per mile for Motorways. This is based on the most polluting cars

So 100 miles on a motorway is £10.

A salesman doing 30k a year with 25k on motorways £2500 and the rest on smaller roads another £250. Its perfect the government gets loads of money, penalises the worst polluters.

This is all in a perfect world

 

[RT4038]

I'm a little concerned by the number of people here who are desperate to increase public transport use by driving up the cost of private transport.

Which will achieve nothing but further crush the mobility of the poor, whilst the rich will just pay whatever you want for the convenience.

We should focus instead of providing a public transport service that people actually want to use, and which is as cheap to passengers as possible!
If we had metro and high intensity bus systems all over the place, people wouldn't want to drive

EDIT:

Just to make a point, ONS suggests the operating cost of a bus service is about £3.90 per bus-mile.
There are 246,000 miles of paved road in Great Britain.

Let's suggest running 4 buses per hour, 18 hours per day, 365 days a year. That is 26,280 buses per year.
That is about £25.2 billion, or about £50.4bn if the buses go both ways.

Even if we ran four buses an hour, 18 hours a day, down every single paved road in Great Britain, we would only spend about £50.4bn a year, which is only 2.32% of GDP.
Oh and that assumes that the buses are free.

Given how much of the road mileage is in urban areas, even doing it for half the road mileage would make a huge difference and crush car traffic - for 1.16% of GDP.

Why would this crush car traffic? Most of my journeys would probably require multiple changes, waiting delays at each change, and I've still got to travel with the scrotes..... Probably still take my car.

 

[Twotwo]

Even with my priv, it's still sometimes cheaper to drive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would this crush car traffic? Most of my journeys would probably require multiple changes, waiting delays at each change

A properly integrated system minimises those by designing the system as one, not as a collection of routes.

and I've still got to travel with the scrotes..... Probably still take my car.

If you are unhappy with travelling with other members of the public, then you're not ever going to use public transport. Might as well just get an electric car.

 

[peters]

The cost of driving vs getting the train depends whether you have to pay for parking at your destination. Someone who commutes from A to B may have to pay for parking if they drive but someone who commutes from B to A may get free parking, yet the train fare is the same.

 

[RT4038]

A properly integrated system minimises those by designing the system as one, not as a collection of routes.



If you are unhappy with travelling with other members of the public, then you're not ever going to use public transport. Might as well just get an electric car.

I was assuming @HSTEd was suggesting a 'properly integrated system', but clearly the road system has not been designed for perfect connections to be made at every junction. On a 15 minute interval service for each route there is the potential for a 14 minute wait to each of the interchanges (which could easily be six or more) for my particular journey.

The desire not to travel with the scrotes is one good reason why this proposed fantastic public transport service will not easily 'crush' car traffic'.

As you well know, the thought that people really want to travel by public transport, but only don't do so because of fares/coverage/service, is a fallacy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The cost of driving vs getting the train depends whether you have to pay for parking at your destination. Someone who commutes from A to B may have to pay for parking if they drive but someone who commutes from B to A may get free parking, yet the train fare is the same.

Yes, parking does need to be incorporated into the choice (unlike "fixed costs" as a "membership" to the "club" of car ownership) - however, so does the cost of the bus/taxi to the station (or the petrol and parking to get there) if it's not within walking or cycling distance. (You could I suppose incorporate shoe leather or distance based cycle maintenance i.e. tyre/brake wear, but it's pennies per journey so might as well be disregarded).

 

[HSTEd]

I was assuming @HSTEd was suggesting a 'properly integrated system', but clearly the road system has not been designed for perfect connections to be made at every junction. On a 15 minute interval service for each route there is the potential for a 14 minute wait to each of the interchanges (which could easily be six or more) for my particular journey.

The desire not to travel with the scrotes is one good reason why this proposed fantastic public transport service will not easily 'crush' car traffic'.

I am not actually proposing puting buses down every single street.
Just demonstrating that the limiting cost of doing so is actually very small.

We could build saturation bus coverage over the vast majority of the population at negligible cost in terms of the whole economy.

As you well know, the thought that people really want to travel by public transport, but only don't do so because of fares/coverage/service, is a fallacy.

Isn't that torpedoed by the experience of most large European cities, including London?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I'm a little concerned by the number of people here who are desperate to increase public transport use by driving up the cost of private transport.

Which will achieve nothing but further crush the mobility of the poor, whilst the rich will just pay whatever you want for the convenience.

One in four households in Britain don't have a car. (DfT stats.) These are overwhelmingly poor households.

The notion that public transport is for the rich is arrant nonsense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was assuming @HSTEd was suggesting a 'properly integrated system', but clearly the road system has not been designed for perfect connections to be made at every junction. On a 15 minute interval service for each route there is the potential for a 14 minute wait to each of the interchanges (which could easily be six or more) for my particular journey.

I don't think he was actually suggesting running a bus up/down each road with people having to make several changes for any given journey. Even Milton Keynes, where you could do that on each V and H, doesn't (the closest I've seen to it being done is Barcelona, but that has a very distributed centre). He was just looking at the financial model of substantially increased operation.

The desire not to travel with the scrotes is one good reason why this proposed fantastic public transport service will not easily 'crush' car traffic'.

Some people just don't like the public and so won't choose public transport. I suspect if the public transport is actually decent and doesn't "smell of wee"[1] most people would consider it. Those people should ideally choose a small, economical electric car for town use, I guess.

[1] The alleged "smell of wee" is mostly just a musty smell from damp upholstery which is caused by bus operators being unwilling to prevent the condensation issue by either specifying double glazing, pressure ventilation/aircon or both. In London, where pressure ventilation fans are mandatory, buses don't "smell of wee", because circulating air reduces the condensation problem and clears the smell.

As you well know, the thought that people really want to travel by public transport, but only don't do so because of fares/coverage/service, is a fallacy.

Those are the main reasons people don't take (mostly long-distance) train journeys (which are the subject of the thread, not buses). I doubt anyone doesn't use Avanti West Coast because of "da lokal yoof" sat at the back - that's a city bus behaviour issue. They mostly don't use it, particularly at "peak" times, because it is outrageously expensive, particularly when more than one person is travelling.

One in four households in Britain don't have a car. (DfT stats.) These are overwhelmingly poor households.

The notion that public transport is for the rich is arrant nonsense.

I think it would be fair to say, by and large, that trains (particularly long distance ones) are for (mostly used by) the rich (and middle class, which includes students who may themselves be poor but will often have parents who pay for it at holiday time), but local buses are for the poor.

 

[peters]

however, so does the cost of the bus/taxi to the station (or the petrol and parking to get there) if it's not within walking or cycling distance. (You cou

I normally walk to the station but because I do a lot of walking my shoes wear out quicker than they would otherwise do. One extra pair of shoes or trainers per year may be a small cost in relation to the cost of running a car but it's something that's easy to forget.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I normally walk to the station but because I do a lot of walking my shoes wear out quicker than they would otherwise do. One extra pair of shoes or trainers per year may be a small cost in relation to the cost of running a car but it's something that's easy to forget.

True, it's probably in excess of the cost of a Railcard (if you're eligible for one).

 

[RT4038]

I am not actually proposing puting buses down every single street.
Just demonstrating that the limiting cost of doing so is actually very small.

We could build saturation bus coverage over the vast majority of the population at negligible cost in terms of the whole economy.


Isn't that torpedoed by the experience of most large European cities, including London?

Nor, I am sure, will you be suggesting that no bus route overlaps with any other. Nor will you be suggesting that a 15 min interval service will be good enough on some major corridors. However, the further people are forced to walk to a bus stop, the less attractive the public transport option will be.

In these big cities the people are co-erced to use public transport, because of the sheer inconvenience/cost of private transport in that circumstance. They are generally not riding trains and buses because they like them per se. ['putting up with it because the alternatives are worse'] These conditions are not found outside of the big cities, either in this country or other European countries.

I don't think he was actually suggesting running a bus up/down each road with people having to make several changes for any given journey. Even Milton Keynes, where you could do that on each V and H, doesn't (the closest I've seen to it being done is Barcelona, but that has a very distributed centre). He was just looking at the financial model of substantially increased operation.

Those are the main reasons people don't take (mostly long-distance) train journeys (which are the subject of the thread, not buses). I doubt anyone doesn't use Avanti West Coast because of "da lokal yoof" sat at the back - that's a city bus behaviour issue. They mostly don't use it, particularly at "peak" times, because it is outrageously expensive, particularly when more than one person is travelling.

In order to come anywhere close to 'crush' the car, the network coverage would need to be quite dense. Walking out to each V and H could easily tip the balance to use the car rather than public transport, coupled to multiple changes during the journey and a similar walk at the other end.

To 'crush' the car (not just get some modal shift, but 'crush') the whole journey made by public transport has to be considered. Not many people are travelling from a point opposite an Avanti West Coast station to another Avanti West Coast station. They are having to walk to, and wait at bus stops, suburban train stations, cross roads to interchange. I expect there are people who don't use Avanti West Coast because their public transport journey would start and/or end with a dark walk to a suburban station and riding an empty local train, or waiting at a lonely bus stop. As you always espouse, it is an integrated journey! Da Local Yoof and others are just as much encountered on suburban trains as city buses!

I am pointing out that merely running extra and more integrated services is not going to 'crush' car use, because of the many external barriers which generally make car journeys more convenient and pleasant than public transport as a whole.

 

[Llanigraham]

Travelling on rural roads could be a matter of 1p per mile based on the lack of bus or train service, 3p per mile lets say on B roads, 5p per mile on non trunk road A roads, 8p per mile on major A road trunk roads and then 10p per mile for Motorways. This is based on the most polluting cars

.....

This is all in a perfect world

And we don't live in a perfect world!!
I suggest you come to Mid Wales and see how none of that will work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To 'crush' the car (not just get some modal shift, but 'crush') the whole journey made by public transport has to be considered. Not many people are travelling from a point opposite an Avanti West Coast station to another Avanti West Coast station. They are having to walk to, and wait at bus stops, suburban train stations, cross roads to interchange. I expect there are people who don't use Avanti West Coast because their public transport journey would start and/or end with a dark walk to a suburban station and riding an empty local train, or waiting at a lonely bus stop. As you always espouse, it is an integrated journey! Da Local Yoof and others are just as much encountered on suburban trains as city buses!

True. In reality I suppose you're not looking to "crush" the car, because cars will always be useful. If someone chooses to drive (ideally an electric car) a couple of miles to the Avanti West Coast station, then take a taxi (ideally an electric one) or a Bozza bike a couple of miles at the other end, you've still got a considerable benefit. It doesn't have to involve buses or local rail.

The trouble is that if it's £300-odd return at the required times, they won't.

I'm not saying the peak shouldn't be costlier than the off-peak, but those fares are outrageous. £150 return (£75 single) is more like a reasonable peak North West to London fare (about 1.5 times the off peak walk up return). Even that, however, is still roughly 2.5 times what my car would cost to do that journey in diesel with 5 people in it. Even if you have to pay £50 to park all day in London (if you're doing it that way round) - and I'm sure you'd find cheaper - it's still nearly fifty quid cheaper by car for one person.