Models for the cost of car ownership

[The Ham]

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

I did say that most would be paying more than the items listed, I deliberately picked low prices so that almost no one could say that they significantly undercut that item.

Even as someone who lives somewhere where there's significant numbers of places to park for free (& walks to and from work and my other half also has free parking at their work) it's still easy to end up paying out £20 or more in a year for parking over half a dozen trips.

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.

Which is an attitude which (not making a comment on your age, but rather a generalisation) trends to be held more by those who are older than about 40.

Which is reflected the numbers who own a full driving licence, where 40-70's are 85% driving licence holders, compared to 30-40's where this is 79% (and relatively few pass their test after 30).

 

[gg1]

Which is an attitude which (not making a comment on your age, but rather a generalisation) trends to be held more by those who are older than about 40.

Which is reflected the numbers who own a full driving licence, where 40-70's are 85% driving licence holders, compared to 30-40's where this is 79% (and relatively few pass their test after 30).

85% compared to 79% isn't a huge difference especially when you bear in mind:

1 - 1-2% of that difference would be people learning to drive later in life, I agree with you that most learn under 30 but it's not that rare to learn later, I know a few people who have

2 - London, the city with by far the best public transport and cycling infrastructure in the UK, also has an age demographic heavily skewed towards the younger end

3 - On the other side of the coin, rural population, where car ownership is pretty much essential, tends to be older than urban areas generally (not just London).

 

[RT4038]

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.

Exactly this. As long as I can afford to have a car, and can drive it, I will have one. For the convenience - journey time, departure time and routeing; for the not relying on anyone else at the time of travel; for the not having to share my immediate travel space. Public transport could be totally free, but I would still want a car.

I accept that there are some for whom public transport could be swapped for a car on the grounds of cost. Not me. I accept that I could do other things with the money saved, but my trade off is very far removed from anything public transport can offer except for a few specific (infrequent) trips to major city centres or long distance journeys or trips specifically as a transport enthusiast.

Which is an attitude which (not making a comment on your age, but rather a generalisation) trends to be held more by those who are older than about 40.

Which is reflected the numbers who own a full driving licence, where 40-70's are 85% driving licence holders, compared to 30-40's where this is 79% (and relatively few pass their test after 30).

I predict this small % of younger people will soon graduate to driving as they settle down in life and realise the inconvenience of relying of public transport in whatever form it takes.

 

[miklcct]

I predict this small % of younger people will soon graduate to driving as they settle down in life and realise the inconvenience of relying of public transport in whatever form it takes.

I predict this small % of younger people will move to London as they settle down in life and realise the inconvenience of relying of public transport in whatever form it takes outside London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I predict this small % of younger people will move to London as they settle down in life and realise the inconvenience of relying of public transport in whatever form it takes outside London.

You might be right if you say the cities, but not just London. You do seem to have rather an obsession with megalopolises as the solution to everything.

Certainly they will likely leave rural areas where public transport barely exists, but all the UK conurbations have fairly dense public transport networks, if not as good as London's - though in some ways more useful because they aren't all planned to get people to one city centre.

 

[cactustwirly]

You might be right if you say the cities, but not just London. You do seem to have rather an obsession with megalopolises as the solution to everything.

Certainly they will likely leave rural areas where public transport barely exists, but all the UK conurbations have fairly dense public transport networks, if not as good as London's - though in some ways more useful because they aren't all planned to get people to one city centre.

Even in built up areas like the Thames Valley, the car is more convenient than public transport for a lot of journeys

 

[miklcct]

You might be right if you say the cities, but not just London. You do seem to have rather an obsession with megalopolises as the solution to everything.

Certainly they will likely leave rural areas where public transport barely exists, but all the UK conurbations have fairly dense public transport networks, if not as good as London's - though in some ways more useful because they aren't all planned to get people to one city centre.

My town is a 400000 people conurbation and there are still major limitations in the public transport network that render it completely useless for travelling to the outer suburbs outside the working hours - specifically most long distance buses stop running after 18:00, with the remaining routes reduced to 2 to 3 hours frequencies in the evening. Also, peripheral connections are still very limited with some areas linked by hourly buses only, or require a transfer between two half-hourly buses.

 

[RT4038]

Even in built up areas like the Thames Valley, the car is more convenient than public transport for a lot of journeys

As it is in much of the conurbations too; if it wasn't then car ownership would not be such a thing.

My town is a 400000 people conurbation and there are still major limitations in the public transport network that render it completely useless for travelling to the outer suburbs outside the working hours - specifically most long distance buses stop running after 18:00, with the remaining routes reduced to 2 to 3 hours frequencies in the evening. Also, peripheral connections are still very limited with some areas linked by hourly buses only, or require a transfer between two half-hourly buses.

However, with judicious use of taxis/uber, life would not be too restricted without being able to drive. However, the convenience of a car will be in fairly stark contrast, to encourage learning to drive and owning one. In large swathes of the country, the market towns, the peri-urban and rural areas, not being able to drive will be a pretty serious constraint.

 

[johncrossley]

My town is a 400000 people conurbation and there are still major limitations in the public transport network that render it completely useless for travelling to the outer suburbs outside the working hours - specifically most long distance buses stop running after 18:00, with the remaining routes reduced to 2 to 3 hours frequencies in the evening. Also, peripheral connections are still very limited with some areas linked by hourly buses only, or require a transfer between two half-hourly buses.

But some people can get by with just using services that are frequent enough. They simply don't go to other places, or just use taxis now and again.

Some people can even live quite happily in small towns without a car. In some ways it is easier, because you can walk everywhere within the town within a reasonable time and you can easily access the railway station if you need to go somewhere far. Many London commuters live in small places in the countryside but manage to go everywhere they want by public transport because all the places they want to go are in London.

 

[RT4038]

But some people can get by with just using services that are frequent enough. They simply don't go to other places, or just use taxis now and again.

Some people can even live quite happily in small towns without a car. In some ways it is easier, because you can walk everywhere within the town within a reasonable time and you can easily access the railway station if you need to go somewhere far. Many London commuters live in small places in the countryside but manage to go everywhere they want by public transport because all the places they want to go are in London.

Quite so, some people can, but their small town life probably has a reliance on the car of friends and/or family to meet some of their transport needs, or they lead quite a restricted life. The older they get the more likely the need to care/visit elderly or incapacitated friends and relatives, which would be a pot luck whether public transport would be possible/convenient.

 

[johncrossley]

It is arguably as easy to live without a car next to Haywards Heath station than somewhere in London zone 4 where you have to walk 10 minutes to the bus stop to get a bus that takes 15 minutes to the station to get a stopping train into central London. If work and all your friends are in London you don't even need to think about whether buses exist to get around Sussex.

 

[miklcct]

It is arguably as easy to live without a car next to Haywards Heath station than somewhere in London zone 4 where you have to walk 10 minutes to the bus stop to get a bus that takes 15 minutes to the station to get a stopping train into central London. If work and all your friends are in London you don't even need to think about whether buses exist to get around Sussex.

If work and all my friends are in London I'll definitely want to live in London zone 4 even it means taking a bus to connect to a train to London Victoria, because the distance (hence the train time) is much shorter into London Victoria.

Walking 10 minutes to the bus stop and taking a 15 minutes bus to the train station then taking 10 minutes train into London Victoria, by all means, is better than taking a direct train which needs 50 minutes into London Victoria.

 

[RT4038]

It is arguably as easy to live without a car next to Haywards Heath station than somewhere in London zone 4 where you have to walk 10 minutes to the bus stop to get a bus that takes 15 minutes to the station to get a stopping train into central London. If work and all your friends are in London you don't even need to think about whether buses exist to get around Sussex.

Well yes, there will always be some people whose life is perfectly aligned with the existing public transport. However, that person has only got to meet a friend/significant other who lives in East Grinstead or Westerham, or their relative in Southwater needs visiting, or a regular hospital appointment in a suburb of Brighton and it all starts to go pear shaped.

 

[lkpridgeon]

I recently did a cost-benefit analysis on car ownership and found it simply wasn't worth owning a car at this moment.

The raw breakeven point for switching from public transport to car in my case was £300-350/month (fuel, tax, insurance, car depreciation, parking). If I were to include lost income (to account for not being able to work whilst traveling) this adds another £350/month. Giving a total cost of ownership at £650/month (£7800/year)

Going hybrid between car and public transport removes the lost income however adds back a good £150/month public transport costs.

Because of this my actual breakeven point before owning a car makes financial sense is when my public transport + taxi bill consistently exceeds £450/month (£5400 year). My current average is £300/month (out of my pocket).

Car hire/sharing is an interesting proposition however due to living in a rural location I currently only consider that a last leg solution should no other option exist.

There are other factors for and against car ownership such as the fact I'm currently letting my neighbor utilize my garage in return for free gardening and the convenience of not running to a schedule however their overall impact on my decision was very low as there's ways to mitigate the drawbacks.

Quite so, some people can, but their small town life probably has a reliance on the car of friends and/or family to meet some of their transport needs, or they lead quite a restricted life.

What makes you think they'd have a restricted life? I've found that being situated next to a mainline railway station (Micheldever)/in a village that's well situated to get to one (Saxilby) that my life isn't at all restricted and I don't exactly keep local. Sure I need to walk a mile here and there, however I've near off no reliance on car based transport.

Should an urgent issue occur, in most cases public transport will get me there in comparable time (give or take an hour) and quite frankly if it happens overnight, I'll most likely be asleep and find out at 5 in the morning when I get up. None of my family/close friends are in places that aren't accessible by public transport between 06:00 and 22:00.

 

[RT4038]

What makes you think they'd have a restricted life? I've found that being situated next to a mainline railway station (Micheldever)/in a village that's well situated to get to one (Saxilby) that my life isn't at all restricted and I don't exactly keep local. Sure I need to walk a mile here and there, however I've near off no reliance on car based transport.

Should an urgent issue occur, in most cases public transport will get me there in comparable time (give or take an hour) and quite frankly if it happens overnight, I'll most likely be asleep and find out at 5 in the morning when I get up. None of my family/close friends are in places that aren't accessible by public transport between 06:00 and 22:00.

The restricted life is only travelling to places that public transport goes to, and at the times it wishes to take you there.

You may well have adapted your life to suit this restriction, and I am sure that I could restrict my life the same if I had to.

But I don't want to spend all day visiting a relative for two hours by public transport, when I can go by car just 'in the morning' or 'in the afternoon', and I can go anytime, not just when the transport operator says. I don't want to be telling the family we can't visit the alpaca farm because no buses go near it. I don't want to put upon my friends that live in a village 20 miles away with sparse, indirect, bus service, that they must always visit me by their car. I don't want one and two mile walks in the rain, in the winter, or being at the mercy of the taxi company, when I can afford a car.

I have happily relied on public transport earlier in my life, but the older I get the less I want to put up with the sheer inconvenience and restrictiveness of it, especially as financially I don't need to. And I live within sight of a fairly major railway junction station with frequent trains - not usually going to where I want to go. Quite possibly it would be cheaper for me to restrict my life and not have a car, but I would rather miss out on other things than mess about with that.

When considering the 'cost' of car ownership, what value do you put on the sheer inconvenience and restrictiveness of reliance on public transport?

 

[cactustwirly]

But some people can get by with just using services that are frequent enough. They simply don't go to other places, or just use taxis now and again.

Some people can even live quite happily in small towns without a car. In some ways it is easier, because you can walk everywhere within the town within a reasonable time and you can easily access the railway station if you need to go somewhere far. Many London commuters live in small places in the countryside but manage to go everywhere they want by public transport because all the places they want to go are in London.

I think you'll find most London commuters have a car that they use on weekends.

 

[johncrossley]

I think you'll find most London commuters have a car that they use on weekends.

Of course they do. Even in London most people have a car. The point is it is perfectly possible to live near a major railway station without a car if you so desire.

Well yes, there will always be some people whose life is perfectly aligned with the existing public transport. However, that person has only got to meet a friend/significant other who lives in East Grinstead or Westerham, or their relative in Southwater needs visiting, or a regular hospital appointment in a suburb of Brighton and it all starts to go pear shaped.

If you lived in London without a car you would have similar difficulty (or otherwise) in visiting those places.

 

[cactustwirly]

Of course they do. Even in London most people have a car. The point is it is perfectly possible to live near a major railway station without a car if you so desire.



If you lived in London without a car you would have similar difficulty (or otherwise) in visiting those places.

But having a car is very convenient for the supermarket shop. Especially if you're shopping for a family it's too much to carry by hand.
Also of you need to visit somewhere where public transport is difficult, such as the hospital or DIY store, then the car is very convenient

I recently did a cost-benefit analysis on car ownership and found it simply wasn't worth owning a car at this moment.

The raw breakeven point for switching from public transport to car in my case was £300-350/month (fuel, tax, insurance, car depreciation, parking). If I were to include lost income (to account for not being able to work whilst traveling) this adds another £350/month. Giving a total cost of ownership at £650/month (£7800/year)

Going hybrid between car and public transport removes the lost income however adds back a good £150/month public transport costs.

Because of this my actual breakeven point before owning a car makes financial sense is when my public transport + taxi bill consistently exceeds £450/month (£5400 year). My current average is £300/month (out of my pocket).

Car hire/sharing is an interesting proposition however due to living in a rural location I currently only consider that a last leg solution should no other option exist.

There are other factors for and against car ownership such as the fact I'm currently letting my neighbor utilize my garage in return for free gardening and the convenience of not running to a schedule however their overall impact on my decision was very low as there's ways to mitigate the drawbacks.


What makes you think they'd have a restricted life? I've found that being situated next to a mainline railway station (Micheldever)/in a village that's well situated to get to one (Saxilby) that my life isn't at all restricted and I don't exactly keep local. Sure I need to walk a mile here and there, however I've near off no reliance on car based transport.

Should an urgent issue occur, in most cases public transport will get me there in comparable time (give or take an hour) and quite frankly if it happens overnight, I'll most likely be asleep and find out at 5 in the morning when I get up. None of my family/close friends are in places that aren't accessible by public transport between 06:00 and 22:00.

Despite living in Reading with good public transport, getting to work is far less convenient and significantly longer than driving.
It's a 20 minute walk each end to get to and from the train station, whereas it's a 20 minute drive door to door.
Plus I can leave work when I want, and not have to worry about missing trains etc

 

[johncrossley]

But having a car is very convenient for the supermarket shop. Especially if you're shopping for a family it's too much to carry by hand.
Also of you need to visit somewhere where public transport is difficult, such as the hospital or DIY store, then the car is very convenient

Even if you lived in London without a car you would have difficulty carrying heavy shopping. Of course, nowadays shopping can be delivered, and even many people with a car find visiting large stores hellish and prefer to get shopping delivered. In the case of DIY stores, you may not have enough carrying capacity if you have a small car. Some people may argue that it is not just impossible to live without a car, it is impossible to live without a big car.

 

[miklcct]

I've found that being situated next to a mainline railway station (Micheldever)/in a village that's well situated to get to one (Saxilby) that my life isn't at all restricted and I don't exactly keep local. Sure I need to walk a mile here and there, however I've near off no reliance on car based transport.

Here my life is very restricted. I live next to a mainline railway station but there are some interesting facilities that I cannot visit between Ringwood and Salisbury because the X3 timetable does not fit my need after evening. There is no train service in these kind of villages and the bus X3, which runs on half an hour headway in the daytime but only a single bus in the evening, is the main form of public transport. Calling a cab will cost about £50 each way.

A lot of rural places are inaccessible by railways that they rely on inter city buses to get to town, but these buses stop operating in the evening.

 

[Starmill]

Surprisingly enough, railway enthusiasts arguing that driving costs 'more than you think' does not seem to have put any drivers off thus far.

I can't say I find this a surprise...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surprisingly enough, railway enthusiasts arguing that driving costs 'more than you think' does not seem to have put any drivers off thus far.

I can't say I find this a surprise...

This is because the decision for most people is not a cost benefit analysis, and this is why the railway etc keep missing the point. It is a much simpler case of "do I want one" and "can I afford it". For the vast majority of people the answer to those two questions is yes and yes, and the railway and bus companies need to get real and work within that constraint because almost nothing they can reasonably do can change that.

Car ownership for me would definitely fail cost benefit analysis. I've never actually done one formally, but I can be sure enough of that for it not to be worth the effort. But I want one, and so I have one. End of. That is an emotional decision, not a rational one, but humans are emotional animals and as such an emotional decision can be a totally valid one.

The thing they might have a chance at, if good enough, is reducing households from two cars to one, that said.

 

[87 027]

Yes, I expect a lot of people are subconsciously pricing in the convenience, flexibility and value that a car adds to their lifestyle and not just looking in isolation at the £££ of owning and using one compared to the alternatives.

 

[cactustwirly]

Yes, I expect a lot of people are subconsciously pricing in the convenience, flexibility and value that a car adds to their lifestyle and not just looking in isolation at the £££ of owning and using one compared to the alternatives.

Is the right answer

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is the right answer

And I would add that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Fundamentally a personal purchase decision can quite validly be "I want it and can afford it so I'm going to have it". There are far worse personal purchases in terms of cost benefit than cars, such as branded clothing and the likes which do nothing that cheaper unbranded ones don't other than give a particular image for the wearer.

And this is why the price of fuel (the other mileage based incrementals are tiny until you get into big mileages) is a valid comparison, and it's time the railway started to believe it.

 

[Starmill]

Fundamentally the quality and availability of public transport to many places remains so poor, and car ownership so affordable on average wages, that there's just no real need to get the calculator out. Buying the car makes sense.

 

[miklcct]

and car ownership so affordable on average wages

Are you joking? Cars are known as a luxury by most people. Mopeds, bicycles and public transport are the common transport of working class.

 

[the sniper]

Are you joking? Cars are known as a luxury by most people. Mopeds, bicycles and public transport are the common transport of working class.

*in Hong Kong.

 

[yorkie]

Are you joking? Cars are known as a luxury by most people. Mopeds, bicycles and public transport are the common transport of working class.

We are talking about the UK, not Hong Kong

https://www.racfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/car-ownership-in-great-britain-leibling-171008-report.pdf

Over 77% of households in Great Britain have a car and
because car-owning households tend to have more than one person (most non-
car owning households are single person households) the number of people with
access to a car in the house is 81% of the total population

I wish it wasn't true, but that is the reality.

 

[miklcct]

We are talking about the UK, not Hong Kong

https://www.racfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/car-ownership-in-great-britain-leibling-171008-report.pdf

I wish it wasn't true, but that is the reality.

You are talking about households here. My words about "cars are unaffordable" are mainly true to people who are single, earning the average wage and don't have a family.

from ONS:

Median annual pay for full-time employees was £31,461 for the tax year ending 5 April 2020, up 3.6% on the previous year; annual pay estimates are largely unaffected by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

After tax deduction (assuming 1257L) this means £25057 yearly, or £2088 monthly take home pay. The total cost of running a car is about £300-350 per month, according to the above reply, is clearly a large burden if the number is indeed true. I can't see those who are earning a pre-tax salary of £25000 or less can realistically afford a car.

This is because the decision for most people is not a cost benefit analysis, and this is why the railway etc keep missing the point. It is a much simpler case of "do I want one" and "can I afford it". For the vast majority of people the answer to those two questions is yes and yes, and the railway and bus companies need to get real and work within that constraint because almost nothing they can reasonably do can change that.

Car ownership for me would definitely fail cost benefit analysis. I've never actually done one formally, but I can be sure enough of that for it not to be worth the effort. But I want one, and so I have one. End of. That is an emotional decision, not a rational one, but humans are emotional animals and as such an emotional decision can be a totally valid one.

Sorry I don't understand this. Isn't the process of buying a "want" a cost benefit analysis normally?

My process to decide buying a car is:
1. I want a car. What's the purpose of it? (transport)
2. Are there any other options to satisfy the same purpose (motorbike, public transport + taxi, etc.)
3. What are the cost and benefits for each of these (car - depreciation, insurance, fuel, parking for comfort, flexibility; public transport + taxi - bus & train fares, no need to find parking space, can drink and ride but need to stick to timetable; motorbike - cheap cost and getting through congestion but uncomfortable and maybe dangerous)
Then I can pick the option, which may or may not be a car.