Car Ownership -Good Or Bad?

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I note anyway even the National Trust which you brought up in a previous post has directions for how to get to its many sites using public transport . So whilst accessing a majority of their sites is easier done by car it seems that the NT does not consider it impossible for people reliant on public transport to visit them .

I assume that you have not seen the annual handbook of the National Trust in recent years, as there is no longer the section in each entry that gives advice on how to get there by all modes of transport.

On the example of Little Moreton Hall that my posting alluded to, even the web page for that site makes no mention of how to get there.

So you tell me, what bus passes that National Trust property or failing that, what is the nearest bus stop in the surrounding area to it and the subsequent walking distance

 

[JamesRowden]

I take it that you do not approve of leisure visits to places that are not served by any mode of public transport or perhaps you do not subscribe to any form of leisure...

I fear that the "1984" Orwellian scenario of "people imposing this restriction upon themselves" bodes frighteningly akin to the situation in East Germany prior the "fall of the Berlin Wall". Incidentally, who will be providing this "resulting superior public transport ststerm" in rural areas that has no such system at present?

Here I was thinking that Britain was a democracy.

I simply want to have a better public transport system to get around since the law states that my medical condition means that I am not allowed to drive. I also see the amount of time that motorists waste in ques which wouldn't exist if some of them used the trains/buses available.

It is within in and between settlements of a reasonable size where a business case for bus operators to provide new commercial services as a result of some people in those reasonably sized settlements deciding not to own a car.

Some of the money which people presently spend to have a car would be spent on the public transport instead.

How is posting on a forum that which I would like our leaders to do in the future undemocratic?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

My wife and I are life members of the National Trust, so using the "no car" scenario of this thread, how would we make the reasonably short journey from the rural border area of Prestbury/Mottram St Andrew (two miles from any bus or train) to Little Moreton Hall on the A34 by public transport when the hall opens soon for the 2017 season.

I think you're arguing against a straw man. As far as I can see, no one on this thread is arguing for no cars. Nor have I seen anyone suggest that people should not be permitted to make car journeys for journeys where there is clearly no other option, which is what you seem to be implying.

What a number of people are, so far as I can tell, arguing for is for more Government measures to improve public transport and discourage driving (which would presumably imply fewer car journeys, NOT no car journeys. Given that significant harm that almost every car journey causes to other people (with the possible exception of car journeys that are wholely in rural areas), that seems perfectly sensible.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is within in and between settlements of a reasonable size where a business case for bus operators to provide new commercial services as a result of some people in those reasonably sized settlements deciding not to own a car.

I must be having a really bad morning, as the logic of what you say above totally and utterly escapes me. I would like to see a response from Stagecoach, First and Arriva to this aspiration of yours that talks of the provision of commercial bus services in the case you cite.

Incidentally, since my stroke at the age of 67 in July 2012, I too no longer drive.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I take it that you do not approve of leisure visits to places that are not served by any mode of public transport or perhaps you do not subscribe to any form of leisure...

I fear that the "1984" Orwellian scenario of "people imposing this restriction upon themselves" bodes frighteningly akin to the situation in East Germany prior the "fall of the Berlin Wall".

This is absurd. There's nothing remotely wrong or Orwellian about people voluntarily restricting their behaviour out of consideration for others or for wider society. I'm sure most of us do that all the time without even particularly thinking about it. Have you never, ever, wanted to do so something, but chosen not to because you appreciate that doing it would hurt others?

Nor is there anything wrong with the Government trying to use planning policies to ensure that companies/leisure places/homes/etc. are, so far as is practical, placed in locations that are accessible other than by car - which I think is what JamesRowden is arguing for in the post you were replying to.

 

[radamfi]

It is perfectly possible to arrange your life so that you don't need a car. It might even be easier in a small or medium sized town. If you deliberately find a house near the town centre, get a job in the town centre and do all your shopping in the town centre, you might only need your two feet for the vast majority of your transportation.

 

[Bromley boy]

It is within in and between settlements of a reasonable size where a business case for bus operators to provide new commercial services as a result of some people in those reasonably sized settlements deciding not to own a car.

The trouble is people will never give up their car in the hope that a good enough service will then be provided. The service will need to already be in place, and obviously it will never make commercial sense for an operator to supply a service before the demand for it is there.

From what I've read bus services in most parts of the uk outside of major cities is unreliable, expensive and struggles to turn any form of profit. There simply isn't the economic incentive for providers to improve it so a viscious circle is created of falling demand = services cut = further falling demand.

Outside of major population areas, without massive government subsidy, it's difficult to see private bus operators ever being willing or able to provide good enough services to tempt people out of their cars.

 

[richw]

I had a 6 month period last year without a car, before being made redundant and new employment requiring 0400 starts forced a car on me.

I managed despite living in rural Cornwall, I chose a house near to a train station and also the town centre.
Grocery shopping I did online. my travel to work was a set price monthly season ticket making budgeting easier. We found ourselves having more days out and further afield as a family as we had more disposable income.
Over that 6 month period I needed a car for 3 periods, one of a week, one of a weekend, and one of two weeks. I hired a car for those periods, which over the period of 6 months was small change compared to what ownership would have cost, and I had the luxury of brand new cars on each occasion.

 

[meridian2]

The trouble is people will never give up their car in the hope that a good enough service will then be provided. The service will need to already be in place, and obviously it will never make commercial sense for an operator to supply a service before the demand for it is there.

I agree, the roads network will have to reach meltdown to get people out of their cars. The nearest test case is London, where the private car is easily the least useful transport option for most people, yet some still persist in habitually using one. Unlike London, the rest of the country does not have the city's transport infrastructure, though some places came close prior to Beeching and the end of corporation buses.

 

[Bromley boy]

It is perfectly possible to arrange your life so that you don't need a car. It might even be easier in a small or medium sized town. If you deliberately find a house near the town centre, get a job in the town centre and do all your shopping in the town centre, you might only need your two feet for the vast majority of your transportation.

It's possible, that doesn't mean it's practical or desirable for a lot of people.

I've done it myself when I spent a few years living in the centre of London (zone 1 within a short walk of a major London terminal). This is the only place where owning a car would genuinely have been more of a hinderance than a benefit.

Where I am now (still relatively central, zone 2/3 boundary), I would estimate around 50% of households choose to run a car, although the vast majority commute to work by public transport. I could get by without a car here, although I need one for getting to work before/after public transport is running.

From experience with friends and relatives who live outside London in smaller towns and rural locations going without a car simply wouldn't be an option given the virtually non-existent and unreliable public transport. People generally want to do more than just walk around their local town

 

[341o2]

Unfortunately for many people public transport provision (routes, frequency and running times) would need to increase greatly before using public transport is viable. In many towns I believe the local councils are cutting subsidies which has the end result of bus routes getting cut or reduced (in length and/or frequency and/or running times)

Indeed, in my own area, New Forest, and surrounding areas of Dorset and Wiltshire there are communities with no public transport at all because the local authorities "cannot afford the subsidy", and restoring passenger service on the Marchwood branch "is not viable regarding finance" especially as bus services have also been reduced in the area.

Elsewhere, it has been suggested that elderly people should automatically loose their licence upon reaching a certain age and move to an area which has public transport

Cue Opening movement of the Planets and sequences of hordes of rats

 

[meridian2]

Cue Opening movement of the Planets and sequences of hordes of rats

Quite.

 

[radamfi]

As I pointed out earlier, even in the countries which have the best public transport in the world, there is still mass car usage and ownership. Good public transport is not the answer on its own. Good public transport can reduce car usage and ownership but does not eradicate it.

 

[meridian2]

As I pointed out earlier, even in the countries which have the best public transport in the world, there is still mass car usage and ownership. Good public transport is not the answer on its own. Good public transport can reduce car usage and ownership but does not eradicate it.

Has anyone argued for the elimination of car ownership?

 

[TheEdge]

It is perfectly possible to arrange your life so that you don't need a car. It might even be easier in a small or medium sized town. If you deliberately find a house near the town centre, get a job in the town centre and do all your shopping in the town centre, you might only need your two feet for the vast majority of your transportation.

I live in a hamlet a few miles outside of Norwich. It does have a bus service, better than many, but its still only 1 bus every 2 hours with a late start and early finish.

I've just tried 3 trips;

Home - supermarket: car 10m, bus, 45m
Home - work: car 5m, bus 40m (not that I could use it for any of my shifts anyway)
Home - model shop: car 15m, bus 1hr

I don't live far from a fairly big city. Those are just not practical in any way for day to day living. So, I need some milk, that's almost a 3 hour trip on the bus, 30m max in a car.

Public transport is just not practical and soon as you are in an even slightly rural area.

 

[muz379]

Unfortunately for many people public transport provision (routes, frequency and running times) would need to increase greatly before using public transport is viable. In many towns I believe the local councils are cutting subsidies which has the end result of bus routes getting cut or reduced (in length and/or frequency and/or running times)

Oh I agree , I was just pointing out to Paul what JamesRowden was arguing . I personally agree though that for many people it is not feasible to give up the car and switch to public transport to place that increased demand on public transport in order to get provision increased .

I assume that you have not seen the annual handbook of the National Trust in recent years, as there is no longer the section in each entry that gives advice on how to get there by all modes of transport.

On the example of Little Moreton Hall that my posting alluded to, even the web page for that site makes no mention of how to get there.

I tend not to look at my handbook much I just use the website as I find it much easier . And the page for Little Moreton Hall certainly does have a "How to get here" section , I was looking just last week as I am planning a trip there soon .

 

[richw]

Little Moreton Halls getting here page tells us the nearest public transport is 3 miles away.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I tend not to look at my handbook much I just use the website as I find it much easier . And the page for Little Moreton Hall certainly does have a "How to get here" section , I was looking just last week as I am planning a trip there soon .

I am now looking at pages 300 and 301 of the 2017 National Trust Handbook section on Little Moreton Hall and there is no "how to get there section", whereas that indeed was once the case a number of years ago.

The only headed sections now are:-
Eat, shop, stay
Things to see and do indoors
Outdoors

 

[richw]

No site has public transport info in the national trust 2017 guide

 

[Clip]

Ive finally binned off me car now as I just really dont need it anymore and its quite a saving to have back in my pocket each month .. Missus still has hers as she works funny hours.

 

[JamesRowden]

I must be having a really bad morning, as the logic of what you say above totally and utterly escapes me. I would like to see a response from Stagecoach, First and Arriva to this aspiration of yours that talks of the provision of commercial bus services in the case you cite.

Incidentally, since my stroke at the age of 67 in July 2012, I too no longer drive.

The government can change the law to make public transport a better choice compared with owning a car compared to the present situation. There was my suggestion earlier in the thread to allow people who would be able to drive, to get a railcard with the same validity as a Disabled Persons Railcard if they are willing to sacrifice their right to get/hold a driving license for the duration of the railcard. Another example of changes that a government could make is the introduction of more bus priority schemes, which makes sense when you think of the line 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' since there should be many more people in a bus compared to the number of people in two individual cars. Another option is to make it so that any driving offence which can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be deliberate or extreme incompetence/carelessness results in a driving ban of at least 3 months.

 

[455driver]

James, did you have the same beliefs before you were diagnosed with your condition or were you quite happy to drive everywhere?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The government can change the law to make public transport a better choice compared with owning a car compared to the present situation. There was my suggestion earlier in the thread to allow people who would be able to drive, to get a railcard with the same validity as a Disabled Persons Railcard if they are willing to sacrifice their right to get/hold a driving license for the duration of the railcard.

I'd be a little nervous of that idea myself - because so many people need to drive - for example to get to work, where there is no suitable public transport. Ideally you want people who need to own cars and to drive on some journeys to still choose public transport (or walking or cycling) for those journeys where that is a reasonable option. A 'non-driver' railcard would do nothing to help that, and could even discourage people with cars from using trains, if it gives them the perception that they have to pay higher fares than other people. I'd also suspect that if you had such a scheme, you'd quickly start to see abuses where - for example - someone gives up their driving license to get the railcard but then routinely gets their parents/wife/husband/etc. to drive them to places, or takes taxis, instead of using public transport.

I'd rather just see a significant increase in investment in rail capacity, with the aim of eventually being able to reduce rail fares all round once there is sufficient capacity on the network to cope. You also really need much better bus/rail integration - in particular so that people making mixed-mode journeys don't have to pay twice (once for the bus, then again for the train).

 

[yorksrob]

I'd be a little nervous of that idea myself - because so many people need to drive - for example to get to work, where there is no suitable public transport. Ideally you want people who need to own cars and to drive on some journeys to still choose public transport (or walking or cycling) for those journeys where that is a reasonable option. A 'non-driver' railcard would do nothing to help that, and could even discourage people with cars from using trains, if it gives them the perception that they have to pay higher fares than other people.

That's where we need a National railcard, available to anyone for a fee. It could encourage people to give up motor transport altogether whilst incentivising those with cars to get the train where appropriate.

(Yes, I know I go on about this).

 

[JamesRowden]

I'd be a little nervous of that idea myself - because so many people need to drive - for example to get to work, where there is no suitable public transport. Ideally you want people who need to own cars and to drive on some journeys to still choose public transport (or walking or cycling) for those journeys where that is a reasonable option. A 'non-driver' railcard would do nothing to help that, and could even discourage people with cars from using trains, if it gives them the perception that they have to pay higher fares than other people. I'd also suspect that if you had such a scheme, you'd quickly start to see abuses where - for example - someone gives up their driving license to get the railcard but then routinely gets their parents/wife/husband/etc. to drive them to places, or takes taxis, instead of using public transport.

I'd rather just see a significant increase in investment in rail capacity, with the aim of eventually being able to reduce rail fares all round once there is sufficient capacity on the network to cope. You also really need much better bus/rail integration - in particular so that people making mixed-mode journeys don't have to pay twice (once for the bus, then again for the train).

I doubt that the presently poor local connections will receive the added demand which they require to be commercially viable to improve unless a significant number of people are given a new reason to use them.

In your suggestion people will just continue to drive to the well connected location.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That's where we need a National railcard, available to anyone for a fee. It could encourage people to give up motor transport altogether whilst incentivising those with cars to get the train where appropriate.

Is there some advantage of a national railcard over simply reducing fares? - Which would give people more incentive to use the train without having to go through the administrative burden of getting a railcard first!

(Either way though, you'll hit the problem that large parts of the rail network are already at capacity and don't really have significant room for the additional passengers that lower fares would bring - hence my suggestion that you also need significant new investment in capacity too).

 

[muz379]

I am now looking at pages 300 and 301 of the 2017 National Trust Handbook section on Little Moreton Hall and there is no "how to get there section", whereas that indeed was once the case a number of years ago.

The only headed sections now are:-
Eat, shop, stay
Things to see and do indoors
Outdoors

I wasn't talking about the handbook . I thought I had made that pretty clear by saying I rarely use it . I was referring to the website which as someone else has already corroborated does have a "how to get here" section

The government can change the law to make public transport a better choice compared with owning a car compared to the present situation. There was my suggestion earlier in the thread to allow people who would be able to drive, to get a railcard with the same validity as a Disabled Persons Railcard if they are willing to sacrifice their right to get/hold a driving license for the duration of the railcard. Another example of changes that a government could make is the introduction of more bus priority schemes, which makes sense when you think of the line 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' since there should be many more people in a bus compared to the number of people in two individual cars. Another option is to make it so that any driving offence which can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be deliberate or extreme incompetence/carelessness results in a driving ban of at least 3 months.

I cant see many people wanting to surrender their license or sacrificing holding one just to get a rail card .

What about people who drive for a living but use public transport or walk/cycle to work for example .

And what about people who want the flexibility of being able to hire a car should they need one but dont actually own or regularly use a private car .

As for making any driving offence result in a ban of 3 months . Would you include in this things like minor speeding offences ? if so I dont personally see that as proportionate .

 

[yorksrob]

Is there some advantage of a national railcard over simply reducing fares? - Which would give people more incentive to use the train without having to go through the administrative burden of getting a railcard first!

(Either way though, you'll hit the problem that large parts of the rail network are already at capacity and don't really have significant room for the additional passengers that lower fares would bring - hence my suggestion that you also need significant new investment in capacity too).

The first is the immediate boost of the price of the railcard itself, which goes straight to the railway.

The second, and most important effect is that it acts as a sunk cost, so people will be inclined to travel by train more to get their moneys worth.

Large parts of the network do struggle with capacity at times, but this will be true of any scheme to increase ridership, and let's not forget that it is the South East, which already has some of the most severe overcrowding, which already has a Netwotk Card.

 

[miami]

I thought this was a thread on car ownership, not car use.

If you hire a car, you can choose an appropriate vehicle for your needs. If it's a single person commuting 10 minutes at 4AM, perhaps a small electric car would be perfect for your needs. If you're going on a 600 mile holiday to scotland with a lot of luggage, perhaps a roomy estate with a large tank would be a better choice. The cost of a car journey reflects the entire cost, there's no sunk cost.

When you own a car, you have to make a decision on the type of car based on all your travel needs - both popping to the local haberdashery, and driving 4 hours to visit friends for a weekend. You have a sunk cost of £x per year, which you have to pay regardless of how much you use it, this makes the marginal cost cheaper, but the overall cost higher than it needs to be.

So on reflection for many people hiring makes perfect sense. And once that is in place, for many trips public transport becomes viable for some or all of the trip. The problem then comes in the overhead of hiring -- getting to the hire place, filling in the paperwork, short term hiring being impractical for the majority of cases, and if you only need the car for 2 10 minute trips a day why would you want to park it at work and hire it for 10 hours?

Carshares reduce the overhead by putting the cars near to where you need them (like Boris bikes) but only work in dense cities, and can't be relied on due to the limited numbers in a given space, and the flow of traffic into work areas in the morning and out of work areas in the evening.

Robots that deliver a car within 5 minutes (where it was parked on non-valuable land, recharging batteries, or was returning from a previous trip from housing->industrial) however change the dynamics by reducing the overhead of hiring a car. If the fleet is large enough there's no need for many people to have the hassle of owning a car, as there's always one on tap, order just before you put your shoes on, job done.

Taxis do this to some extent, although are more expensive per mile than a hire car due to the cost of the driver. One other thing that does stop me using a taxi more is the car seat problem - when you have kids, you need car seats. When you own your own car, they are always available. When you get a train somewhere, and want to get around an area, taxis go out of the window

If you wanted to discourage car ownership, one way to force appropriate use of resources would be to ban on-road parking between the hours of 3AM and 4AM. If you want to own a car, you must have somewhere to store it. It's really unacceptable for people to take ownership of 6 square metres of public space on a constant basis. At the very least the ban on driving on the pavement (unless accessing private land) should be enforced.

If only 10% of drivers moved to public transport, the system would collapse (rail usage would double for instance), so any change in peoples habits need to be gradual.

 

[507021]

I enjoy owning my car, although more recently I'm walking to and from work (now I work closer to home) as well as to the local shop to save on fuel as well as to get some more exercise. The only time I drive now is if the weather is rubbish or if I'm travelling long distance.