Models for the cost of car ownership

[87 027]

Some further considerations...

4. I might have young children. They have school, after school clubs, sports events, parties, outdoor activities, camps etc etc. I can't be farting around with sporadic, meandering and early-finishing forms of public transport to get to everywhere and fit it all in within the time available. Does a car let me do this more cost effectively? Yes
5. I might be the main carer for elderly parents. I can help them get out and about for their mental health and take them down country lanes on circuitous leisure journeys that have no purpose other than a change of scenery after 18 months of lockdown. I can take them shopping and get bulk groceries for them and unpack heavy tins and packets into their cupboards that online delivery drivers won't do. Does a car let me do this more cost effectively? Yes
6. I might like camping holidays in remote countryside locations and appreciate the benefit of a vehicle with sufficient capacity to accommodate all my kit and a good range (700 miles) on a single tank of fuel. Last year I looked into hiring to drive abroad as an alternative and the cost for 2 weeks was close to the entire annual cost for my already paid-for MPV

I completely agree different people have different requirements depending on life circumstances and we shouldn't generalise about what ought to be appropriate for everyone

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Cars are affordable to pretty much everyone in the UK, give or take those on very low wages (many of whom still can because they house share or live with parents). You can pick up a small, old one for very little, and because most of them are pretty good these days in reliability terms it won't usually cost too much to keep it going.

Buses are certainly the transport of the really poor, though, and to some extent bicycles. Mopeds are very niche in the UK, mainly for kids who want them before they are allowed to drive cars (from 16 rather than 17) and motorcycles are mostly for fun or for big city transport where you can weave through traffic.

from ONS:

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.

Those are average figures. Most notably because of insurance - a 17 year old might pay £1500+ a year, but a 40 year old as low as £300 or so.

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.

Hardly anybody thinks that way, I can guarantee you. It goes more like this:

1. I want a car. Can I afford it?
2. Get a car.

Or perhaps more they get a car at 17/18 and just build up their life having always had one.

 

[cactustwirly]

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:

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.



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.

I'm single and live by myself, I earn less than £25k and can still afford a car. I don't know where you're getting £300 per month from either?

 

[miklcct]

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

I'm single and live by myself, I earn less than £25k and can still afford a car. I don't know where you're getting £300 per month from either?

Here.

I have asked on another forum if a car will be cheaper than £100 / month cab cost on top of bus fares (which a 90-day ticket is £145) and the only response is that a car is much more expensive than that. The reason I'm thinking about taking cabs is because the express bus doesn't run at the time I want in the evening, that if I insist taking public transport I have to take indirect buses with 30 minutes trip time (including a transfer) instead of under 10 minutes on the 50 mph direct route, and the cab will cost £11 per trip for a 5 km journey.

 

[gg1]

I'm single and live by myself, I earn less than £25k and can still afford a car. I don't know where you're getting £300 per month from either?

Probably working on the false assumption that everyone leases or buys on PCP.

For my first 10 or so years of car ownership I bought older cars, usually around 10 years old and kept them for on average 3 years or so. Not sure what the exact cost of doing that now at today's prices would be but it would definitely average out at well under £200 per month

 

[Bletchleyite]

Here.

I have asked on another forum if a car will be cheaper than £100 / month cab cost on top of bus fares (which a 90-day ticket is £145) and the only response is that a car is much more expensive than that. The reason I'm thinking about taking cabs is because the express bus doesn't run at the time I want in the evening, that if I insist taking public transport I have to take indirect buses with 30 minutes trip time (including a transfer) instead of under 10 minutes on the 50 mph direct route, and the cab will cost £11 per trip for a 5 km journey.

Have you considered cycling (or if your fitness isn't up to that, an e-bike)? 5K is very much in the journey length sweet spot for a cycle commute (much below that and you might as well walk, much above that and motorised transport is definitely going to win unless you're a fitness nut).

 

[miklcct]

Have you considered cycling (or if your fitness isn't up to that, an e-bike)? 5K is very much in the journey length sweet spot for a cycle commute (much below that and you might as well walk, much above that and motorised transport is definitely going to win unless you're a fitness nut).

I can't cycle at 50 mph so this is not a good option is me. Also, public bike availability here is a hit or miss, and as it's a one-way journey (the express bus does run in the other way at the time I want at 50 mph and I'm taking it every time) so getting my own bike for this journey is not an option for me.

Motorised transport is going to win not because of the distance. The speed is the main factor here. I'll highly prefer taking a bus even for a 1 km journey if the express bus can cover it in less than a minute on a trunk road. In an urban area even a car may not win a bike in term of travel time, but for this particular journey, a car can win any other kind of transport by a huge margin simply the car can travel at 50 mph (the end points of my journey are just off the entrance of the trunk road - the perfect journey by car).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't cycle at 50 mph so this is not a good option is me. Also, public bike availability here is a hit or miss, and as it's a one-way journey (the express bus does run in the other way at the time I want at 50 mph and I'm taking it every time) so getting my own bike for this journey is not an option for me.

Motorised transport is going to win not because of the distance. The speed is the main factor here. I'll highly prefer taking a bus even for a 1 km journey if the express bus can cover it in less than a minute on a trunk road.

Based on that - it appears that your time is extremely valuable so you want to travel as quickly as possible with little consideration of other factors - you should absolutely, without question, buy a car (and learn to drive if necessary).

Taking a bus 1km shows that time is of overriding importance to you.

 

[miklcct]

Based on that - it appears that your time is extremely valuable so you want to travel as quickly as possible with little consideration of other factors - you should absolutely, without question, buy a car.

My conclusion is to take taxi then, because it's only this particular trip at this particular time a car have advantage over public transport. When the express bus does run a car does not confer an advantage here as it travels on the same route, and the other trips I usually take have hellish parking (imagine getting to the beach at 2 pm on a sunny warm day) which means a car isn't practical so I will be better off taking a bus even it deviates 5 minutes off the direct route by car.

 

[Factotum]

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

If we are to combat global warming people will have to accept some inconveniences in their lives.
But they won't so we shan't.
The planet will se me out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we are to combat global warming people will have to accept some inconveniences in their lives.
But they won't so we shan't.
The planet will se me out.

Done the right way actually very few. Nuclear power and associated mass electrification of transport and home heating (using heat pumps) is very much the answer.

 

[Factotum]

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

Not sure what point you are making there?

Done the right way actually very few. Nuclear power and associated mass electrification of transport and home heating (using heat pumps) is very much the answer.

There needs to be massive technical improvements in electrical vehicles before they can be used without inconvenience And home heating by heat pumps might be the answer but you are asking the wrong question. And the cost of building and operating nuclear power stations and managing their waste will be a big financial inconvenience to tax payers

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure what point you are making there?

Exactly what I said. Public transport has basically no chance of making people give up cars entirely because this is a lifestyle choice, not a financially rational one. However, it might feasibly cause them to "downsize" to one car if one of a couple can commute by public transport (if they commute) and at other times they usually go around together or one at a time. I know a couple in that position - they moved near a station and sold one of their two cars because commuting could then be entirely by train, but have no intention of getting rid of the other one.

There needs to be massive technical improvements in electrical vehicles before they can be used without inconvenience

Most cars spend most of the time making short journeys.

And home heating by heat pumps might be the answer but you are asking the wrong question. And the cost of building and operating nuclear power stations and managing their waste will be a big financial inconvenience to tax payers

What do you mean by "asking the wrong question"? And I suspect the taxpayer would be far more inconvenenced by flooding and wildfires.

 

[Starmill]

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.

Those figures make it totally realistic to run your own car as a single person. And that's a relatively high cost estimate, because until the pandemic there was a very wide market for 'old bangers' at knock-down rates, and average car prices are driven high by new-builds, which are seen as a luxury compared to one-previous-owner models that are a year or two old.

There needs to be massive technical improvements in electrical vehicles before they can be used without inconvenience

In general it's just petrolheads and skeptics who think skepticism is cool who are in this camp now. Arguably some new EVs have ranges which are really too long, the Kia e-Niro has WLTP range of 282 miles for example. Almost no need to find any charging save overnight with that.

 

[gg1]

In general it's just petrolheads and skeptics who think skepticism is cool who are in this camp now. Arguably some new EVs have ranges which are really too long, the Kia e-Niro has WLTP range of 282 miles for example. Almost no need to find any charging save overnight with that.

Why do you say the range is TOO long?

Real world range of an e-Niro is around 230-240 miles, less than half that of many ICE cars. I'm not an EV sceptic by any means and my next car will almost certainly be an EV but I would still consider such a range to be a significant negative.

 

[Factotum]

Most cars spend most of the time making short journeys.
But the solution has to cope with every one, including those doing 500 mile round trips in a day.


What do you mean by "asking the wrong question"? And I suspect the taxpayer would be far more inconvenenced by flooding and wildfires.

Changes to the energy supply won't reverse the climate changes which are responsible or more wildfires and flooding

 

[Bletchleyite]

Changes to the energy supply won't reverse the climate changes which are responsible or more wildfires and flooding

They absolutely will, or as a minimum will stop them getting worse.

But the solution has to cope with every one, including those doing 500 mile round trips in a day.

No, it doesn't. If someone has a second city car that never makes long journeys, it doesn't need a large range, a small one of say 50-100 miles would be plenty.

 

[Factotum]

Motorised transport is going to win not because of the distance. The speed is the main factor here

In the last month my small motorcar has averaged 12mph in commuting
My e-bike, which I use when I have no big loads to carry has averaged 13.9mph. And given me the joy of shooting past long stationary traffic jams.

 

[Starmill]

Why do you say the range is TOO long?

Real world range of an e-Niro is around 230-240 miles, less than half that of many ICE cars. I'm not an EV sceptic by any means and my next car will almost certainly be an EV but I would still consider such a range to be a significant negative.

Because it uses up more scarce minerals, which have to be mined, using lots of energy and causing lots of pollution, to produce extra large capacity batteries which may not actually be necessary. And because it wastes energy driving around a heavier than necessary car.

 

[miklcct]

In the last month my small motorcar has averaged 12mph in commuting
My e-bike, which I use when I have no big loads to carry has averaged 13.9mph. And given me the joy of shooting past long stationary traffic jams.

If I were you I will only use my motorcar when I know the speed is much more than that (e.g. when the journey starts at the entrance of a motorway and ends at the exit of a motorway), and use alternate transport at other times.

If the town I live does not have fast roads (such as Wessex Way) a car is simply out of question for me, in such case a bicycle will be enough.

 

[Factotum]

In general it's just petrolheads and skeptics who think skepticism is cool who are in this camp now. Arguably some new EVs have ranges which are really too long, the Kia e-Niro has WLTP range of 282 miles for example. Almost no need to find any charging save overnight with that.

That is a best case figure. It can deteriorate to 60% of that in cold conditions. I am not a sceptic except in that I think we have taken a wrong turning with e-cars by not having a standardized removeable battery pack.

When I was younger I thought nothin of driving to the north of Scotland for weekend of climbing and wild camping. That would be very difficult in car with a range of 200 miles.

I suspect that future long distance business travelers will travel post, changing their car every 200 miles

 

[Starmill]

Changes to the energy supply won't reverse the climate changes which are responsible or more wildfires and flooding

It's not clear if climate change that's already occurred is reversible. Whatever happens now we'll likely have to accept far more severe weather including wildfires and flooding. However, the cutting the carbon intensity of the electricity supply is precisely an issue we need to act on right now if we wish to continue to maintain a planet on which we can actively mitigate the effects of the changing climate, rather than a planet on which humans can no longer survive.

 

[Factotum]

If I were you I will only use my motorcar when I know the speed is much more than that (e.g. when the journey starts at the entrance of a motorway and ends at the exit of a motorway), and use alternate transport at other times.

If the town I live does not have fast roads (such as Wessex Way) a car is simply out of question for me, in such case a bicycle will be enough.

I am often forced to use the car to carry bulky items to out of the way places

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is a best case figure. It can deteriorate to 60% of that in cold conditions. I am not a sceptic except in that I think we have taken a wrong turning with e-cars by not having a standardized removeable battery pack.

Do you know how much they weigh? You'd need a forklift.

When I was younger I thought nothin of driving to the north of Scotland for weekend of climbing and wild camping. That would be very difficult in car with a range of 200 miles.

The number of people who will drive that distance at short notice is very small.

I suspect that future long distance business travelers will travel post, changing their car every 200 miles

200 miles is a "sweet spot" range because it forces people to have a decent break to fast-charge every few hours but not frustratingly often. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. People should not, ahem, be driving non-stop from London to Barnard Castle. It is not adequately safe to do so. If cars physically prevent people doing that, then good, bluntly.

If you can manage 250 that's a bit of backup for driving around at the destination and for when it deteriorates a bit.

200 miles is just under 3 hours legally on a motorway. Really people should take breaks considerably more often than that.

 

[Starmill]

That is a best case figure.

It's a WLTP figure so variable weather conditions are taken into account. The perfect-conditions figure will be higher.

When I was younger I thought nothin of driving to the north of Scotland for weekend of climbing and wild camping. That would be very difficult in car with a range of 200 miles.

Er, there are chargers in Northern Scotland?

 

[miklcct]

I am often forced to use the car to carry bulky items to out of the way places

This is like a standard use of a business car though, which is irrelevant to personal car ownership. If you are running this as part of a self-employment this is a good justification to buy the car on business.

 

[Factotum]

Do you know how much they weigh? You'd need a forklift.



The number of people who will drive that distance at short notice is very small.



200 miles is a "sweet spot" range because it forces people to have a decent break to charge every few hours. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. People should not, ahem, be driving non-stop from London to Barnard Castle. It is not adequately safe to do so. If cars physically prevent people doing that, then good, bluntly.

If you can manage 250 that's a bit of backup for driving around at the destination and for when it deteriorates a bit.

Non ICE forklift trucks exist. Garage who exchanged packs would have to own one.
It may be small but it is significant enough to have to be taken into account

My cars have always been designed and insured to accept more than one driver. On our long trips to Scotland we would change drivers every couple of hours. And even if you accept 250 as the limit having to make an overnight, or even six hour stop, between sessions is a bit OTT

It's a WLTP figure so variable weather conditions are taken into account. The perfect-conditions figure will be higher.

Er, there are chargers in Northern Scotland?

Not out in the remoter spots

 

[Bletchleyite]

My cars have always been designed and insured to accept more than one driver. On our long trips to Scotland we would change drivers every couple of hours. And even if you accept 250 as the limit having to make an overnight, or even six hour stop, between sessions is a bit OTT

Have you ever heard of fast charging? Typically 80% of capacity within 30-60 minutes, a nice stop for a coffee and perhaps some food.

 

[Starmill]

Not out in the remoter spots

So your view is that because you personally may occasionally want to drive 250 or more miles with no break, to an uninhibited place (there are chargers in Tyndrum so it really does have to be very remote) in Northern Scotland, on a whim, for a trip where no hire car was available from a station or you needed to go by road all the way for some other reason, the the rest of society is going to, for similar reasons, reject electric vehicles? Have I got that right?

My cars have always been designed and insured to accept more than one driver. On our long trips to Scotland we would change drivers every couple of hours. And even if you accept 250 as the limit having to make an overnight, or even six hour stop, between sessions is a bit OTT

So essentially it's your own individual, personal exceptionalism that makes an EV unsuited to your needs? Sure, that's not an issue at all. But almost nobody else will use a vehicle in the way you describe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So your view is that because you personally may occasionally want to drive 250 or more miles with no break, to an uninhibited place (there are chargers in Tyndrum so it really does have to be very remote) in Northern Scotland, on a whim, for a trip where no hire car was available from a station or you needed to go by road all the way for some other reason, the the rest of society is going to, for similar reasons, reject electric vehicles? Have I got that right?

It's the classic RailUK deafblind autistic wheelchair user, as it were. People love finding incredibly niche reasons why things won't work for a tiny number of people, then extrapolate to it not working at all. Provided there is some sort of provision for the exceptions, there is nothing at all wrong with providing something convenient for the majority.

If 80% of people (say) could quite happily have an electric car, and we succeed in "greening" the grid, that's going to be about an 80% reduction in emissions from car use. That is still very much worth it.

Crikey, the requirement noted above is incredibly niche. I climb and hillwalk, but would not be driving to northern Scotland in one go - it's simply dangerous, even with a second driver*. I've driven to northern Scotland but with an overnight stay, even that wasn't much fun.

* Coaches are allowed to operate long distances overnight with two drivers and one attempting to kip in a seat at a time. From experience of being on such a coach and seeing what the driving was like at various points, this is not really safe and probably shouldn't really be happening (because a couple of hours dozing in a seat is not adequate), and because of this not every coach company will even agree to it.