Does it matter if bus services reduce car usage but not car ownership?

[TheGrandWazoo]

All developed countries have near universal car ownership. Most people who want a car can afford one. Certainly in Britain and other English speaking countries, car ownership means using the car for most if not all trips. However, in some other highly developed countries, there is high public transport modal share even in quite small cities. Therefore there must be many car owners in those places who use public transport for some trips and the car for some trips. This is because public transport has been made attractive enough that it is still considered worth using even if you have a car. That's why you can't look at international car ownership rates and assume that means that public transport is poorly used.

Indeed but it's much more nuanced than that (in terms of car ownership and distribution) and extends far beyond public transport provision. After all, the statement of "All developed countries have near universal car ownership" isn't really the case - in France it's 83% whilst here we are at 74% of households (not individuals) have access to a car. When looking at countries in Western Europe (which is where I think you're coming from), the whole fabric of urban planning (and the very structure of society) has been sculpted very differently in countries such as Sweden and Denmark.

Indeed, re "other English speaking countries" comment, there are even great disparities within Europe. Look at the EU member states in CEE and you'll see that places like Slovenia are seeing public transport use decline markedly as car ownership swells but then again, their approach to society and social planning is different from Western Europe or the UK.

 

[carlberry]

As far as I am concerned I am getting less money because my employer is paying the landlord for free parking. I don't really care if it is unpopular if the current system is unfair and clogs up the roads.

The majority of people are paid the minimum the employer thinks they can get away with, this usually means that people who do certain jobs get a certain amount of money (with variations for locations like London). Some employers can try to attract staff by offering perks (such as free parking) to either make themselves more attractive or compensate for paying less than the standard rate. However if this actually made a major difference then people who didn't have a car would change jobs to work for an employer that didn't offer it because they'd be paid more, for most people it ends up as 'how much do I get paid' and everything else ends up further down the list.
If your employer could get a better office rate without parking they'd be likely to take it (if they thought they'd be able to retain the right number of staff) however most offices are rented out as a fixed price with fixed amenities. If they did get a better price I suspect the shareholders/owners are more likely to see the difference than the employees!

 

[fowler9]

I asked you because you said earlier

I never asked for more pay.

 

[fowler9]

The majority of people are paid the minimum the employer thinks they can get away with, this usually means that people who do certain jobs get a certain amount of money (with variations for locations like London). Some employers can try to attract staff by offering perks (such as free parking) to either make themselves more attractive or compensate for paying less than the standard rate. However if this actually made a major difference then people who didn't have a car would change jobs to work for an employer that didn't offer it because they'd be paid more, for most people it ends up as 'how much do I get paid' and everything else ends up further down the list.
If your employer could get a better office rate without parking they'd be likely to take it (if they thought they'd be able to retain the right number of staff) however most offices are rented out as a fixed price with fixed amenities. If they did get a better price I suspect the shareholders/owners are more likely to see the difference than the employees!

This doesn't change the fact that if the company I work for charged for parking or gave some insentive to use public transport I would be better off. Peoples free parking comes out of my wages.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought I explained pretty well why I brought up work car parks. The car is left in the car park for 40 hours a week and I am paying for it.

You're not, the company is. You can't assume that you would get a higher salary if the facility was abolished, they may well just make more profit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This doesn't change the fact that if the company I work for charged for parking or gave some insentive to use public transport I would be better off.

If they gave a public transport incentive of a financial nature you would. Not if there was a parking charge.

Peoples free parking comes out of my wages.

No, it doesn't, there is no reason to believe you would be paid more in that case; it just comes out of the company profits.

 

[fowler9]

You're not, the company is. You can't assume that you would get a higher salary if the facility was abolished, they may well just make more profit.

It is coming out of money I could earn. I am paying for people to park. I'm not saying the company would give me the money.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is coming out of money I could earn.

No, you couldn't. It comes out of the company's profits. There is no reason for you to believe you would be paid more in such a case; salaries are based on the market or on Union negotiations, not how much profit the company makes.

 

[fowler9]

No, you couldn't. It comes out of the company's profits. There is no reason for you to believe you would be paid more in such a case; salaries are based on the market or on Union negotiations, not how much profit the company makes.

The company is spending money they could spend elsewhere purely to allow minimum wage workers to park for free. They could provide people with travel loans. I never said I wanted to be paid more. At the end of the day my wage is deflated to pay for acres of land to park other peoples cars on. We need to find ways to encourage people to live a more sustainable existence.

 

[Dai Corner]

The company is spending money they could spend elsewhere purely to allow minimum wage workers to park for free. They could provide people with travel loans. I never said I wanted to be paid more. At the end of the day my wage is deflated to pay for acres of land to park other peoples cars on. We need to find ways to encourage people to live a more sustainable existence.

Isn't being given an (interest free presumably) travel loan effectively being paid more?

 

[fowler9]

Isn't being given an (interest free presumably) travel loan effectively being paid more?

Probably no more than being able to leave your car rent free on private land for 40 hours a week for about 45 weeks a year. How much would an airport charge? You haven't thought this through.

 

[Dai Corner]

Probably no more than being able to leave your car rent free on private land for 40 hours a week for about 45 weeks a year. How much would an airport charge? You haven't thought this through.

But you said you ' never said you wanted to be paid more'. Now you're saying you want a benefit in the form of an interest free loan. I was picking up (perhaps unfairly) on that contradiction. I'd actually agree with you that such loans are a useful employee benefit, one which I've used myself in the past.

 

[carlberry]

Probably no more than being able to leave your car rent free on private land for 40 hours a week for about 45 weeks a year. How much would an airport charge? You haven't thought this through.

The only way you are going to benefit from this is if you (after agreeing it with your employer) rent out the space that, in theory, you could use to somebody else. There are quite a few websites that offer this kind of service and that way you'll find out what this perk is worth.

 

[Dai Corner]

The only way you are going to benefit from this is if you (after agreeing it with your employer) rent out the space that, in theory, you could use to somebody else. There are quite a few websites that offer this kind of service and that way you'll find out what this perk is worth.

Or perhaps car share with someone who lives and works near him but doesn't get a free parking space. The space would be his contribution instead of petrol money.

 

[fowler9]

But you said you ' never said you wanted to be paid more'. Now you're saying you want a benefit in the form of an interest free loan. I was picking up (perhaps unfairly) on that contradiction. I'd actually agree with you that such loans are a useful employee benefit, one which I've used myself in the past.

Why can't I have that when everyone with a car gets free parking? They actually have "Green" targets and pay for people to park but not to car share or use public transport.

The only way you are going to benefit from this is if you (after agreeing it with your employer) rent out the space that, in theory, you could use to somebody else. There are quite a few websites that offer this kind of service and that way you'll find out what this perk is worth.

It doesn't take much investigation to know that the company I work for pays a fortune for peoples cars to sit on land doing nothing.

 

[Dai Corner]

Why can't I have that when everyone with a car gets free parking? They actually have "Green" targets and pay for people to park but not to car share or use public transport.

They've probably found free parking is something that attracts the sort of staff they want. If you'd prefer a travel loan there are probably employers who offer that instead (or as well).

 

[fowler9]

They've probably found free parking is something that attracts the sort of staff they want. If you'd prefer a travel loan there are probably employers who offer that instead (or as well).

Yeah fair enough. Not sure I feel the way forward is to encourage people to drive.

 

[Dai Corner]

Yeah fair enough. Not sure I feel the way forward is to encourage people to drive.

My local area probably has enough jobs for everyone to walk to work, but unfortunately they aren't the 'right' jobs so hundreds travel out and hundreds travel in every day. I was one of those who walked.

 

[Gingerbus1991]

when any case of car vs bus is discussed I always without fail recall startin my career 10 years ago and the buses being substantially busier in my area, not so much anymore, many double decker routes nowadays being able to operate with singles on them for instance, even at peak times.

As a society including our MP’s we talk about many in poverty yet car ownership is on the up, up, up...bus travel is still substatially cheaper in most respects, has the bus became a symbol of a different type of poverty that people don’t want to be associated with?
Does this mean many are living beyond there means in the seek for convenience, comfort ergo not having to walk for a bus?

By many standards its sheer laziness without fail.

Sorting the issue of falling bus usage is one that is trying to be solved(in part) by city centre council authorities and the government by introducing such measures as emission and congestion charging in these city centres where its becoming the norm to drive your car, even if thats through-city commuting, I do believe that parking should not be allowed in city centre streets, i’ve stayed in glasgow most of my life until recently and quite simply glasgow CC lets everyone park on the streets after 6pm for free(if its still like that anyways), I do not think this should be allowed I also think the area or congestion charging should be increased in size.

If there were a way I could see the number of individuals that could use a bus and leave there car at the door for commuting or for leisure in and around glasgow, edinburgh, dundee and aberdeen I do think the numbers would be staggering to the amount of people that could be using a bus far more often.

Essentially I do like that the government and council measures are forcing the cost of using a car in the city centre up, and I certainly don’t think the trains at peak times anyways could cope if there was a surge in people turning to the train as the bus alternative which has steeply became the way.

 

[fowler9]

My local area probably has enough jobs for everyone to walk to work, but unfortunately they aren't the 'right' jobs so hundreds travel out and hundreds travel in every day. I was one of those who walked.

Mate sometimes it is unavoidable that people have to drive. I think it is a complete societal problem. Some people I work with live in the same city but have insane commutes because we are on the outskirts. Got no time for people who live near me and drive though.

 

[fowler9]

when any case of car vs bus is discussed I always without fail recall startin my career 10 years ago and the buses being substantially busier in my area, not so much anymore, many double decker routes nowadays being able to operate with singles on them for instance, even at peak times.

As a society including our MP’s we talk about many in poverty yet car ownership is on the up, up, up...bus travel is still substatially cheaper in most respects, has the bus became a symbol of a different type of poverty that people don’t want to be associated with?
Does this mean many are living beyond there means in the seek for convenience, comfort ergo not having to walk for a bus?

By many standards its sheer laziness without fail.

Sorting the issue of falling bus usage is one that is trying to be solved(in part) by city centre council authorities and the government by introducing such measures as emission and congestion charging in these city centres where its becoming the norm to drive your car, even if thats through-city commuting, I do believe that parking should not be allowed in city centre streets, i’ve stayed in glasgow most of my life until recently and quite simply glasgow CC lets everyone park on the streets after 6pm for free(if its still like that anyways), I do not think this should be allowed I also think the area or congestion charging should be increased in size.

If there were a way I could see the number of individuals that could use a bus for commuting or for leisure in and around glasgow, edinburgh, dundee and aberdeen I do think the numbers would be staggering to the amount of people that could be using a bus far more often.

Essentially I do like that the government and council measures are forcing the cost of using a car in the city centre up, and I certainly don’t think the trains at peak times anyways could cope if there was a surge in people using PT.

These new lease contracts people have are mad. People half my age are driving Audis and Mercs just out of school. Just not sustainable and it will all come crashing down like the housing market.

 

[radamfi]

Indeed but it's much more nuanced than that (in terms of car ownership and distribution) and extends far beyond public transport provision. After all, the statement of "All developed countries have near universal car ownership" isn't really the case - in France it's 83% whilst here we are at 74% of households (not individuals) have access to a car. When looking at countries in Western Europe (which is where I think you're coming from), the whole fabric of urban planning (and the very structure of society) has been sculpted very differently in countries such as Sweden and Denmark.

Indeed, re "other English speaking countries" comment, there are even great disparities within Europe. Look at the EU member states in CEE and you'll see that places like Slovenia are seeing public transport use decline markedly as car ownership swells but then again, their approach to society and social planning is different from Western Europe or the UK.

The effect of urban planning is often overplayed, usually used as an excuse why things can't be done in English speaking countries, particularly the US and Australia. I've seen analysis showing that even somewhere like Los Angeles which has long assumed to be beyond help has higher population density than suburban areas in western Europe with good usage levels of public transport. As for the UK, towns are typically compact as much of the country was built before the private car became commonplace, and even after that has mostly enjoyed fairly strict planning regulation, except during the 80s and early 90s. Obviously we now have trends such as people moving to big cities, living in apartments and therefore choosing not to have a car on grounds of practicality or even lack of interest in motoring.

You are bound to get reductions in public transport usage in areas that are starting to become wealthy enough to afford cars. It will be interesting to see if PT usage can be maintained at western European levels when and if car ownership levels become comparable.

 

[carlberry]

As a society including our MP’s we talk about many in poverty yet car ownership is on the up, up, up...bus travel is still substatially cheaper in most respects, has the bus became a symbol of a different type of poverty that people don’t want to be associated with?
Sorting the issue of falling bus usage is one that is trying to be solved(in part) by city centre council authorities and the government by introducing such measures as emission and congestion charging in these city centres where its becoming the norm to drive your car, even if thats through-city commuting.
Essentially I do like that the government and council measures are forcing the cost of using a car in the city centre up, and I certainly don’t think the trains at peak times anyways could cope if there was a surge in people using PT.

Government policy over many years has been to encourage car ownership (that isn't what they say, however it's what they do). Things like freezing the fuel duty at the same time as reducing the tax rebate for bus operation for example).
Unfortunately, other than London, emission zones will just penalise public transport users. Glasgow is a classic example, buses have to obey it however taxis, cars, vans don't. Bus companies have increased costs, everybody else dosent.
Some councils might be trying to increase the costs of using a car however they'll face the full fury of the press and the present Govermment never will.

 

[fowler9]

When I was going to school back in the 90's I used to get a lift off my mum occasionally, we would have to wait a couple of minutes at the junction of Allerton Road and Queens Drive (Liverpool's main ring road). Now the whole of Allerton Road is a car park. When I was at Uni one or two people had a car, now it seems the norm. I would love to see the figures because car ownership (Particularly new cars) seems to have gone through the roof.

 

[Bletchleyite]

These new lease contracts people have are mad. People half my age are driving Audis and Mercs just out of school. Just not sustainable and it will all come crashing down like the housing market.

It won't do anything of the sort, because it works very, very differently. It's also quite useful for feeding the second hand market, which benefits everyone - including you as a non-user, as a good second hand car market means people drive newer cars and so pollution is reduced.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The company is spending money they could spend elsewhere purely to allow minimum wage workers to park for free. They could provide people with travel loans

What do you need that for? Merseytravel's weekly and monthly tickets, and those offered by others locally, are excellent value, and probably almost nobody buys an annual. The figures are nothing like London (where employers often do offer loans).

 

[fowler9]

It won't do anything of the sort, because it works very, very differently. It's also quite useful for feeding the second hand market, which benefits everyone - including you as a non-user, as a good second hand car market means people drive newer cars and so pollution is reduced.

Who is buying all these new second hand Mercs and Audis. Unless there has been a massive surge in car ownership then stuff is also getting scrapped much quicker. That isn't good for the environment. If kids can afford luxury cars someone is losing out somewhere. It will all come crashing down like I said.

Sorry mate but I said this year's ago with Endowment mortgages when I worked in finance. We started getting loads of complaints about shortfalls years before the crash. It wasn't sustainable. People can't just have better than ever before for nothing. Someone has to loose. Kids getting Audis just out of school isn't going to carry on forever.

 

[fowler9]

What do you need that for? Merseytravel's weekly and monthly tickets, and those offered by others locally, are excellent value, and probably almost nobody buys an annual. The figures are nothing like London (where employers often do offer loans).

An annual is cheaper than twelve monthly Trios.

What do you need that for? Merseytravel's weekly and monthly tickets, and those offered by others locally, are excellent value, and probably almost nobody buys an annual. The figures are nothing like London (where employers often do offer loans).

My dad used to work work for Merseytravel ticketing department so you don't need to tell me about it. An annual travel loan works out cheaper than a monthly Trio and is easier to budget for as it comes straight out of your wage on payday.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Who is buying all these new second hand Mercs and Audis. Unless there has been a massive surge in car ownership then stuff is also getting scrapped much quicker. That isn't good for the environment.

With quick advancements in emissions related technology, that will balance things out. People driving more modern cars generally also increases road safety.

If kids can afford luxury cars someone is losing out somewhere. It will all come crashing down like I said.

No, it won't.

Sorry mate but I said this year's ago with Endowment mortgages when I worked in finance. We started getting loads of complaints about shortfalls years before the crash. It wasn't sustainable. People can't just have better than ever before for nothing. Someone has to loose. Kids getting Audis just out of school isn't going to carry on forever.

Secured loans of that kind (or similar schemes) have nothing at all to do with endowment mortgages. They are not even similar. Do your research.

 

[Mikey C]

I thought I explained pretty well why I brought up work car parks. The car is left in the car park for 40 hours a week and I am paying for it. Some of them live by me and some live even closer to the office (It is only a thirty minute walk for me). People don't need their car, they have just become accustomed to having one. The car is a convenience not a necessity for many, as the roads get more and more gridlocked it will become less of a convenience. Over a decade ago I got offered a lift home from work from a different office in Liverpool City centre, it took longer than getting the train, to this day that person still drives.

But that wasn't what the original thread was about, which was about car usage and car ownership. Those cars are being used to get to the work car park, as opposed to people who have a car and leave it parked outside their front door all day.

Most factories and warehouses are in the outskirts anyway, which are really hard to get to by public transport. If the company chooses to offer a car park, that's their choice. They might find that without it they wouldn't be able to get the right quality of staff. I had a job many years ago were driving was the only way I could get there. Thankfully since then I've not had to drive to work.