Car Ownership -Good Or Bad?

[RichmondCommu]

G'day everyone,

I'm curious to know forum members opinions on car ownership and whether they think car ownership should be actively discouraged by the Government. I'm willing to admit that on our drive way there are three cars and even taking into account the need for a small economical (ish) car to travel around Greater London, in addition to a large family sized car, three cars is probably too many.
However in many instances I don't feel that the Government / country is able to offer me a viable alternative.

Thoughts anyone? For what its worth I'm more than happy to face criticism for my policy on car ownership so fire away!

Kind regards,

Richmond Commuter!

 

[EM2]

I've tried numerous times to not have a car and rely on public transport, but even living in London Zone 3 it wasn't practical, because I have friends and relatives spread far and wide, and using public transport to get there was time-consuming and expensive.

 

[meridian2]

Cars are horrible in so many way, but I agree transport policy has made the alternatives difficult/impossible unless one lives in a major city. Look at any architectural journal before the 1950s to see Georgian and Victorian street frontages unsullied by nose to tail parked cars. We have two, one's my wife's commuter and I'm hoping to scrap the other in May, but living in a rural area the public transport options are risible. I shall get a small motorcycle.

 

[najaB]

Private car ownership should be discouraged. Shared ownership is the way forwards.

 

[me123]

It's very much different depending on where you live, but on the whole I'll argue that car ownership is a good thing. Not everyone has great public transport links on their doorstep. We don't all live in London. If I tried to survive in North Wales using local buses and trains, I would really struggle. Car ownership is essential for me, and most other people in this region. (This can, of course, be extrapolated to other rural and semi-rural areas).

It's very different in big cities like London, Glasgow, Manchester etc. It's much easier to get by without a car when you have an extensive public transport network - I'm not saying that everyone can, but it becomes much easier and often more practical to do so (anyone who's lived in a big city quickly realises that you can't actually park anywhere near where you need to go). But even with this, there are definite economical advantages to having cars.

There is of course the adverse effect of car ownership - the environmental impact is unescapable. But, even with an expanded public transport network, the need for the car is never going to disappear. It is perfectly reasonable to levy tax on fuel to ensure that people do drive responsibly (i.e. not going quarter of a mile down the road to the local corner shop), and accessible public transport with competitive fares should be encouraged. But the need for the car will never go away.

Certainly outwith big cities, I don't want to see car ownership discouraged. However, discouraging car use when there are viable alternatives available is a very sensible plan.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Private car ownership should be discouraged. Shared ownership is the way forwards.

Fair enough I'm curious to know who you think a car could / should be shared with.

 

[yorkie]

Obviously a bad thing, but at present it's necessary for some people to own a car, depending on where they live and work.

For me, it isn't essential, so I choose not to, but the Government and train companies make it difficult, as the cost of train tickets is often ludicrously high.

 

[najaB]

Fair enough I'm curious to know who you think a car could / should be shared with.

There are plenty of car clubs already, with more on the way.

 

[Flying Snail]

Focusing on car ownership is the wrong way to go about things. In fact we should be at worst neutral on ownership, it is car USE that needs to be dealt with.

The problem is that once owned and put on road (tax, insurance, MOT, maintenance) the journey cost is too low to discourage use that would be better for society if made by public transport.

The cost needs to be transferred to car usage and particularly undesirable usage such as suburb-urban commuting.

 

[TheEdge]

I live in the countryside and work shiftwork. So public transport is rather useless to me.

So I drive a bright green Skoda and like it very much.

 

[Bromley boy]

Car ownership is already discouraged by the government via fuel duty, vehicle tax, MOT costs, in addition to insurance costs etc. The list goes on.

In London fewer and fewer people own cars. I use mine sparingly, never to drive into central London as there's nowhere to park and I don't want to pay the congestion charge. Public transport is almost always cheaper and faster.

It comes in handy for journeys to awkward to reach destinations outside of London. Also for work as I'm often required to get to and from work at times when public transport isn't operating.

Overall, no, I don't think the government should penalise car owners any more than they already do.

 

[richw]

I live in a rural area and start work at 4am 17 miles away, like it or not a car is essential for me. With so many bus cuts due to funding drops a car is turning essential for most rural people.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There are plenty of car clubs already, with more on the way.

Car clubs are very expensive, though, and not all of them are as ethical as they should be when it comes to damage fees.

I neither had nor needed a car when I lived in zone 3 London. It was a pain carrying shopping home on the bus, but it was perfectly possible. The buses were good enough and driving in Central London is always a horrible experience.

But that's the only place where I'd say that's the case. Living in Newcastle I survived without a car but it was inconvenient for many things, living here now and in Hemel Hempstead so many things were so difficult as to be almost impossible to do without a car.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I have a car but I only do about 500 - 600 miles a year; most of that is the fortnightly Tesco run. When this car eventually dies, I will not be replacing it.

Focusing on car ownership is the wrong way to go about things. In fact we should be at worst neutral on ownership, it is car USE that needs to be dealt with.

The problem is that once owned and put on road (tax, insurance, MOT, maintenance) the journey cost is too low to discourage use that would be better for society if made by public transport.

The cost needs to be transferred to car usage and particularly undesirable usage such as suburb-urban commuting.

I consider that it was a mistake for the Government to axe the fuel price escalator.

 

[radamfi]

Even if you look at the countries with the best public transport in the world, for example Switzerland, per capita car use is actually higher than the UK. Car ownership is largely at the same high level in most Western European countries.

Driverless cars may well reduce car ownership dramatically if it enables you to have a taxi like service at a lower cost than driving yourself. That may or may not be a good thing for congestion and the environment.

It is commonly understood that you have more need to have a car in a rural area compared to a big city, but if you move from a big city to the countryside, could you argue that you have deliberately deprived yourself of public transport to enable you to drive around without guilt?

 

[muz379]

I would argue the bigger issue is use rather than ownership in and of itself
Owning a car that you use at weekends is obviously nowhere near as damaging to the environment as commuting by car everyday .

I know plenty of people who own cars they use socially but commute day to day by public transport

The most sensible policy government wise would probably be to encourage this so that jobs are kept in car manufacturing and supply chain but the environmental effects are mitigated . Of course this is probably not the most efficient use of personal finances but to some extend that is not the governments issue so long as you are not getting into uncontrolled debt .

If I worked a job I could use public transport to travel to I certainly would not drive to and from work just because of the cost of fuel , congestion , parking and even costs in insurance for higher mileage and commuting on my policy . I think that I would probably still want to own my own car however because it can be handy at times vs the model that I have adopted in the past which is not owning a car and Hiring one a handful of times when needed .

It's very different in big cities like London, Glasgow, Manchester etc. It's much easier to get by without a car when you have an extensive public transport network - I'm not saying that everyone can, but it becomes much easier and often more practical to do so (anyone who's lived in a big city quickly realises that you can't actually park anywhere near where you need to go). But even with this, there are definite economical advantages to having cars.

I dont know about Glasgow but in Manchester trains out to commuter towns commence at about 6am and finish about 11pm at night . Whilst this is okay for people who work 9-5 jobs there are plenty of people who would benefit from and wish to make Journeys later than this . If I finish work at 11pm the roads are far from deserted driving home .

 

[Cowley]

I'm a self employed painter and decorator and my other half is a child minder which includes picking up children from a rural school so neither of us can do without our vehicles. Both our vehicles are over ten years old and as they're reliable (touch wood) it's not worth changing them for now.
If circumstances were different it would be nice just to have one vehicle and use public transport more, we do use public transport when we can and the kids all use buses for school/college etc.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Car ownership is already discouraged by the government via fuel duty, vehicle tax, MOT costs, in addition to insurance costs etc. The list goes on.

But whenever I've looked up estimates of the true cost of driving (taking into account the impacts on noise, the environmental, health, congestion, etc.) the figures I find generally seem to show that the true cost per mile is actually greater than you pay in fuel duty, tax, etc. That would imply that - for all the complaints about the level of fuel duty - motorists actually receive a net subsidy. Or another way of looking at it is: Far from discouraging car ownership, the Government actually encourages people to drive, by arranging things so that motorists do not, in general, pay the full cost of their journeys. (Although I suspect any analysis would show the same is also true of public transport)

(And as an aside: I don't think it's really fair to include MOT and insurance costs in your list. Those aren't taxes, they are payment for services that are arguably an essential part of owning and driving a car responsibly. If paying them wasn't mandatory, driving would be a lot more dangerous - to both the motorist and to other people).

 

[muz379]

(And as an aside: I don't think it's really fair to include MOT and insurance costs in your list. Those aren't taxes, they are payment for services that are arguably an essential part of owning and driving a car responsibly. If paying them wasn't mandatory, driving would be a lot more dangerous - to both the motorist and to other people).

Certainly agree about the MOT . In fact if anything if you look at the governments activity in that area they apply a cap to the cost of the MOT without this cap I suspect many garages would charge stupid sums just like some manufacturers do for things that are uncapped like servicing . Nothing to stop garages(many do) carrying out the test and issuing the certificate for less than this, my local garage charges 40 for example . Afterall it only takes around 45 minutes and is really only a cursory inspection of the main components essential to safety .

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Focusing on car ownership is the wrong way to go about things. In fact we should be at worst neutral on ownership, it is car USE that needs to be dealt with.

The problem is that once owned and put on road (tax, insurance, MOT, maintenance) the journey cost is too low to discourage use that would be better for society if made by public transport.

The cost needs to be transferred to car usage and particularly undesirable usage such as suburb-urban commuting.

I think you are correct that, once you've paid to have a car, the marginal cost of using it is often very low (certainly lower than using public transport). I'm sure this causes many problems where people buy a car because they genuinely need it for some journeys, but then once they have the car and have 'sunk' the large cost of owning it, they then use the car not only for the journeys that they really need it for, but also for journeys where public transport would have been perfectly realistic - simply because the additional petrol cost is so much smaller than using public transport would cost.

However, I don't think it's true that merely owning a car is entirely problem-free. Look at how many streets, especially in residential areas, become narrow and congested simply because of all the parked cars along them that aren't being used for 95% of the time. Round where I live, I can think of a large number of streets that would have been perfectly wide enough for free-flowing two-way traffic or for bus routes to run along them, but which - thanks to all the parked cars - have become completely impractical as bus routes, and have become the equivalent of 'narrow roads with passing places' (the passing places being, wherever the nearest gap in the parked cars is).

One of the oddities of mass-car-ownership is the way that we've all acquired the idea that owning a car gives you the right to semi-permanently block a small area of what is supposed to be a public street by your house, preventing other people from using that bit of the road most of the time, completely free of charge (unless you live in a residents' parking zone, in which case you probably do pay a small admin fee).

 

[meridian2]

In some Far Eastern cities car ownership is allowed if you have somewhere to keep the vehicle off the road. The terraced streets I grew up in had three or fours car on a typical road. Now almost every house has one, many own two and a few have three or more cars to an average domestic frontage the length of a typical saloon. If homeowners permanently kept skips at the front of their house, would that be an acceptable use of the immediate road space?

 

[Starmill]

Not having the use of a car is rubbish. And I live in an inner city, with a two trains per hour service to the centre taking around 12 minutes. There's also a relatively intensive local bus service, but I rarely use that because it's a requirement to buy a day ticket and then use the same company back (the single fare is very expensive), the journey time is at least double, and the service is particularly unreliable (there is no live information at any of the bus stops around here).

It's crap because the Sunday train service is only hourly, and there's no service back after midnight which is annoying, espeically Friday and Saturday. National connections from Manchester Piccadilly are among the best in the country and still very poor. London services taking 2 hours 10 are excellent, but these trains are very costly. Trains to the likes of Sheffield and York are very slow and very very expensive compared to driving a modern, efficient car. Using the train instead of driving does have the advantage that I'll be compensated if I am seriously delayed, and traffic jams are never a worry.

The real problem is the times when there are no trains to places I want to go (early Sundays usually) and journeys with awful connections. Also, a significant number of trains are awful for comfort compared to the cars I bet Richmond owns. Even with the stress of driving they would be nice and comfortable compared to a pacer. I know lots of people who will simply driver to Leeds, York, Sheffield etc. What they should be encouraged to do is drive to a suitable station and catch a fast, inexpensive train to these places for a local connection by bus or tram. Public transport around here is certainly the best it gets in our region, and still I really want a car. However, I can mange (kinda - sometimes I walk a very long way or leave hours and hours earlier than I would if I were driving) and I believe in it, so I'll stick with it.

 

[johntea]

I'm currently taking lessons again but even when I pass probably won't own a car for a good while, moved to a 5 minute walk to work and on a good bus route for any shopping needs (although even then online takes care of most of that).

But what I will say is I've been home to the parents this weekend and travelling back tomorrow, a 60 minute train journey (20 + 40) but the sting in the tail is a 50 minute wait between the connection!

 

[muz379]

London services taking 2 hours 10 are excellent, but these trains are very costly.

Whilst walk up fares are expensive I have always found advance fares to represent good value for money

I work on the railway now so obviously it is completely different .

But before I worked on the railway I used to travel every few months up to Edinburgh from Manchester . By booking advances I always paid around £12 each way . A quick check now brings up advance fares for £13 . £26 round trip if you can get the advances represents a saving on the £50 in fuel I spent when I drove up in January and that was without considering the headache of parking . To Rival the cost of the train just in fuel costs assuming you already owned the car and discounted the wear and tear etc you would have to be getting 85-90mpg .

 

[Abpj17]

A number of the younger population in London don't own cars (not needed for commute) but rent for the weekends they want to get out of town.

Food shopping is easily, and often cheaply, delivered.

 

[Bromley boy]

But whenever I've looked up estimates of the true cost of driving (taking into account the impacts on noise, the environmental, health, congestion, etc.) the figures I find generally seem to show that the true cost per mile is actually greater than you pay in fuel duty, tax, etc. That would imply that - for all the complaints about the level of fuel duty - motorists actually receive a net subsidy. Or another way of looking at it is: Far from discouraging car ownership, the Government actually encourages people to drive, by arranging things so that motorists do not, in general, pay the full cost of their journeys. (Although I suspect any analysis would show the same is also true of public transport)

(And as an aside: I don't think it's really fair to include MOT and insurance costs in your list. Those aren't taxes, they are payment for services that are arguably an essential part of owning and driving a car responsibly. If paying them wasn't mandatory, driving would be a lot more dangerous - to both the motorist and to other people).

That's certainly true historically given the favouring of road building over other methods of transport... That ethos hit its peak during the thatcher years when roads were subsidised but rail was expected to be cost neutral for the government. I'd imagine how true it is now varies by car user according to their individual useage profile.

MOT is a government imposed cost, insurance is legally required but the cost is subject to market forces so more arguable.

 

[fowler9]

Far too many families in my area where mum, dad and two teenage kids all have cars. No need for it. In my house there are 4 adults and 1 car, how do we cope?

 

[Starmill]

Whilst walk up fares are expensive I have always found advance fares to represent good value for money

I work on the railway now so obviously it is completely different .

The cheapest Manchester to London return using Advance tickets is £44. You must book this a long way in advance - 6 months or so, although you may still find availability at 3 months. You must travel on specified trains, you have no right to a refund and you must pay fees to change your booking. On weekdays you will find no availability ever at this price on certain trains, so you will likely be relegated to very late arrivals (after midday) and the final departures of the night home, getting back after 2300. That's a very long way indeed from 'good value'. Other journeys are much more practical, e.g. it's possible to get a Leeds to London return at the same terms for £31. As you say it's possible to get a Manchester to Edinburgh return for £23 at these terms. There are exceptions, such as when there is a sale, or if you have a railcard.

 

[Crossover]

If I could commute by public transport and at a sensible price, I may consider it. As it is, I can't (first train from my local shack takes over an hour to get to one of the nearer railway stations to work, where it arrives some 15 mins from when I start work, but there would still be a 10ish minute tram journey and 20 min walk on top. I can drive it in 40 mins on better days) so I do around 12k miles a year. I have had the odd day when visiting exhibitions and in training courses where I've taken the train to the cities (Manchester and Leeds) and it is good as it's less tiring than driving and I can catch up on stuff on the journey. That said though, that has also only worked due to the venues locality to the transport hubs and being relatively close to a railway station from home

I also use the car for local leisure travel - public transport would be no use for most of that either due to the times I'd need to travel missing any last buses or trains by miles sometimes or infrequency thereof

That said, I overheard a conversation at work the other day about acolleague whose car had broken down (possibly terminally) and they were coping without - work was local (maybe walkable, I'm not sure) and shopping trips just involved a taxi, with which you know where your costs are, so I think they were wondering whether to replace it

 

[Crossover]

The cheapest Manchester to London return using Advance tickets is £44. You must book this a long way in advance - 6 months or so, although you may still find availability at 3 months. You must travel on specified trains, you have no right to a refund and you must pay fees to change your booking. On weekdays you will find no availability ever at this price on certain trains, so you will likely be relegated to very late arrivals (after midday) and the final departures of the night home, getting back after 2300. That's a very long way indeed from 'good value'. Other journeys are much more practical, e.g. it's possible to get a Leeds to London return at the same terms for £31. As you say it's possible to get a Manchester to Edinburgh return for £23 at these terms. There are exceptions, such as when there is a sale, or if you have a railcard.

It may be for another thread, but as Starmill knows, I recently travelled from Rome to Naples and back during a recent holiday. Tickets had to be booked in advance (reservations mandatory, though I think some tickets allow changes to be made) which we did the day before we travelled - for around €40 each return (out in Italo Smart and back in Comfort, at that) - best part of 223km each way in just over an hour.

Locals may, of course, see that as expensive, but to us it wasn't (probably says a lot about our public transport!). Now we had a choice of travelling or not, but had tickets been as per U.K. and hundreds of Euros return so close to time, we probably wouldn't have travelled