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

[radamfi]

In the UK, with some exceptions, buses are mostly used if you don't access to a car or any other mode of transport. Ideally, however, buses and other local public transport should be a tool to cut road congestion and generally be an attractive alternative to the car. But does it matter if people continue to own cars but leave them at home to use the bus, or is it critical that people forego car ownership altogether?

 

[fowler9]

In the UK, with some exceptions, buses are mostly used if you don't access to a car or any other mode of transport. Ideally, however, buses and other local public transport should be a tool to cut road congestion and generally be an attractive alternative to the car. But does it matter if people continue to own cars but leave them at home to use the bus, or is it critical that people forego car ownership altogether?

Cars sat their doing nothing take up a lot of space. Next doors two people carriers take up half the land area of their house. Our office is dwarfed by the the area of the car parks (which are free) filled with cars doing nothing all day. That is paid for by my employer in rent. I don't get a subsidised travel pass, in a way my wage is lower so the car parking is paid for despite the fact I don't drive. I don't loose sleep over it but it is a thought.

 

[Ianno87]

I really think there should be a bigger push on the Zipcar-type approach. I bet there's a good many people who if they *really* analysed their car use, owning and maintaining their own vehicle doesn't stack up at all - but place alot of value on the convenience of jumping in their own car to hand whenever is neccessary.

The sheer amount of city space taken up for storage of cars not being used is ludicrous, frankly.

 

[Dai Corner]

In the UK, with some exceptions, buses are mostly used if you don't access to a car or any other mode of transport. Ideally, however, buses and other local public transport should be a tool to cut road congestion and generally be an attractive alternative to the car. But does it matter if people continue to own cars but leave them at home to use the bus, or is it critical that people forego car ownership altogether?

In residential areas without off street parking cars left at home take up road space and can cause congestion or prevent larger vehicles - such as buses - getting through.

I keep both my cars (yes, I love motoring as well as rail travel) off-road and wouldn't contemplate buying a house where I couldn't do that.

On a wider economic scale, there are many millions of pounds tied up in cars which could perhaps be invested in wealth-producing assets instead.

 

[radamfi]

There is certainly a case for arguing that space occupied by parked cars is wasteful. But is a public transport service only a success if it stops people from buying cars altogether?

 

[Dai Corner]

I really think there should be a bigger push on the Zipcar-type approach. I bet there's a good many people who if they *really* analysed their car use, owning and maintaining their own vehicle doesn't stack up at all - but place alot of value on the convenience of jumping in their own car to hand whenever is neccessary.

The sheer amount of city space taken up for storage of cars not being used is ludicrous, frankly.

If I really analysed my car usage I would just get public transport or taxis and hire a car for some trips

 

[jon0844]

Besides parking issues, what's the problem with someone using any form of public transport as often as possible but keeping a car for when there's really no other option?

I try and use buses and trains, or walk (I sometimes cycle but hate leaving my bike anywhere as thefts are high) but for a lot of the time I have to use our car.

 

[radamfi]

what's the problem with someone using any form of public transport as often as possible but keeping a car for when there's really no other option?

In my view, there's no problem. But some people seem to think that if car ownership is still high, then the service is not successful, even if people leave their cars at home from time to time.

 

[ChrisPJ]

It is a sign of an intelligent society when a significant number of car owners will walk past it on the driveway and round the corner to catch a bus/tram/train.

 

[Gingerbus1991]

Some of the biggest arguments/comments i’ve heard from car owners are things like I already pay for a car so why should I also pay to use a bus or the bus takes too long or I simply dont have a bus from my rural home to my work place etc

Of course generally speaking the bus is in most cases the cheaper way to travel.

I have also heard many close relatives who have car say they dont like using buses because there usually cold in the winter, boiling in the summer etc.

My own controversial thoughts are to do with our government issuing concession cards to not just oaps, quite frankly many neds/chavs who are alkies, junkies or wasters will put people off using buses, perhaps many people are far more neutral in thought than I am but there will certainly be underlying thoughts by many to do with those reasons.

I frequently ask some people why its always the train and not the bus and one of those reasons are down to the types who use buses, I do partly agree with that.

I do also have a theory that in many areas if people were told they could’nt use there cars on a Monday morning the PT sector would have a melt down, many trains and buses already run at full or near full capacity during the morning peak.

In residential areas without off street parking cars left at home take up road space and can cause congestion or prevent larger vehicles - such as buses - getting through.

I keep both my cars (yes, I love motoring as well as rail travel) off-road and wouldn't contemplate buying a house where I couldn't do that.

On a wider economic scale, there are many millions of pounds tied up in cars which could perhaps be invested in wealth-producing assets instead.

Not sure about others but my home town wouldnt have issues with cars parking on residential streets throughout the day, theres got to be many areas where that would be a problem, not on purpose, but people not understanding that a particular street may be a bus route etc

If the scottish government are to impose a no parking on pavements law this may cause issues for motorists never mind the buses around my village, many people around where I stay do park on pavements.

Bottom line, the issues concerning car use verses congestion are ones that are trying to be solved by the government through emission & congestion charging, in our major cities anyways, by creating a daily cost that would be considerably higher than just taking the bus, or in other words, forcing people to leave there cars at home to use PT.

 

[edwin_m]

Most of the downsides of cars (accidents, pollution, congestion, noise) arise from using them not from owning them. Owning does create a parking problem (though if people are not using the car that means at home not at the office) and there is some environmental downside of producing cars but I believe it is dwarfed by the effects of using them.

While the ideal would be for everyone to be able to get everywhere at any time by public transport with no inconvenience, I don't believe that's attainable. Most people will need a car for journeys like visiting relatives or carrying lots of luggage or purchases. Many older or disabled people need a car to get around locally but probably don't travel very far. So public transport should try to cater for as many journeys as possible and its success should be measured mainly in the number of car-miles avoided. Also tax policy etc should aim to put as many of the costs of motoring as possible onto useage not ownership.

 

[fowler9]

Most of the downsides of cars (accidents, pollution, congestion, noise) arise from using them not from owning them. Owning does create a parking problem (though if people are not using the car that means at home not at the office) and there is some environmental downside of producing cars but I believe it is dwarfed by the effects of using them.

While the ideal would be for everyone to be able to get everywhere at any time by public transport with no inconvenience, I don't believe that's attainable. Most people will need a car for journeys like visiting relatives or carrying lots of luggage or purchases. Many older or disabled people need a car to get around locally but probably don't travel very far. So public transport should try to cater for as many journeys as possible and its success should be measured mainly in the number of car-miles avoided. Also tax policy etc should aim to put as many of the costs of motoring as possible onto useage not ownership.

Yeah but what should be included in the cost of motoring should be the cost of using the car park at my place of work which is many times the size of the office. It should not be free. I fund my travel costs including where the bus/train is left hanging around when not in use. The people who leave their cars for free in the company car park don't get paid less than me.

 

[Dai Corner]

Yeah but what should be included in the cost of motoring should be the cost of using the car park at my place of work which is many times the size of the office. It should not be free. I fund my travel costs including where the bus/train is left hanging around when not in use. The people who leave their cars for free in the company car park don't get paid less than me.

Start a campaign for the car park to be made chargeable and see how many colleagues agree with you!

 

[Gingerbus1991]

Start a campaign for the car park to be made chargeable and see how many colleagues agree with you!

Work place park taxing have been on scotlands government agenda before, particularly in city centre environments, nothing has yet came to fruition, but I see that many work places will perhaps not be willing to pay extra costs for the purposes of employee parking.

 

[philthetube]

Start a campaign for the car park to be made chargeable and see how many colleagues agree with you!

Start a campaign for non car park users to be paid more, the reactions to that could be interesting.

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>

 

[The Ham]

I live somewhere witha high car ownership and the local council have implied in the past that because there'sa high car ownership rate that there's no need for them to improve public transport.

I would suggest that having people learn to use public transport whilst owning cars is no bad thing. Over time they may well learn that they can do without, be that without a second car or even any car.

The "I need... For..." Argument is a difficult one to argue against, however it is possible to hire cars/vans for the times you need it.

I knew someone who had a large estate car for moving their child in/out of uni once per year. They would have probably been better off buying a smaller cheaper to run car and hiring a small van. Better still limiting the amount of stuff their child took to uni (lots of others manage when their parents have smaller cars).

Most people spend thousands on a car and sell it for a LOT less, yet ignore that when they look at their travel costs.

At a previous job I was spending £2,000 a year on my season ticket, yet when I looked at the full cost of owning a car to do the same journey it would have cost more.

Why, the fuel would have been £700 a year, tax £140, insurance £300, MOT & servicing £120, would have only left about £750 a year in purchase costs (£2,250 over 3 years) which probably would have meant a cheap car potentially increasing maintenance costs or would have resulted in buying a different car sooner (with the costs associated with doing so).

The really crazy thing to do is own a car for 5,000 miles a year or less and have a new or fairly new car every three years. As you could probably get taxis for the same amount that you are spending. OK, probably not taxis for all your travel but you could use them for a lot of short trips and use other public transport for the longer journeys (even if it was a taxi ride at each end).

 

[edwin_m]

Yeah but what should be included in the cost of motoring should be the cost of using the car park at my place of work which is many times the size of the office. It should not be free. I fund my travel costs including where the bus/train is left hanging around when not in use. The people who leave their cars for free in the company car park don't get paid less than me.

I've seen somewhere that the average cost of providing parking is £400 per space per year. What's really unfair is that parking season tickets can be bought by salary sacrifice but unless it's changed recently public transport season tickets can't, with the exception of a legal loophole valid for buses only.

 

[PeterC]

Some of the biggest arguments/comments i’ve heard from car owners are things like I already pay for a car so why should I also pay to use a bus or the bus takes too long or I simply dont have a bus from my rural home to my work place etc

Of course generally speaking the bus is in most cases the cheaper way to travel.

I have also heard many close relatives who have car say they dont like using buses because there usually cold in the winter, boiling in the summer etc.

My own controversial thoughts are to do with our government issuing concession cards to not just oaps, quite frankly many neds/chavs who are alkies, junkies or wasters will put people off using buses, perhaps many people are far more neutral in thought than I am but there will certainly be underlying thoughts by many to do with those reasons.

I frequently ask some people why its always the train and not the bus and one of those reasons are down to the types who use buses, I do partly agree with that.

I do also have a theory that in many areas if people were told they could’nt use there cars on a Monday morning the PT sector would have a melt down, many trains and buses already run at full or near full capacity during the morning peak.

Not sure about others but my home town wouldnt have issues with cars parking on residential streets throughout the day, theres got to be many areas where that would be a problem, not on purpose, but people not understanding that a particular street may be a bus route etc

If the scottish government are to impose a no parking on pavements law this may cause issues for motorists never mind the buses around my village, many people around where I stay do park on pavements.

Bottom line, the issues concerning car use verses congestion are ones that are trying to be solved by the government through emission & congestion charging, in our major cities anyways, by creating a daily cost that would be considerably higher than just taking the bus, or in other words, forcing people to leave there cars at home to use PT.

The trip computer gives me 32mpg for the three mile round trip to my nearest supermarket, parking is free. Assuming walking one way and bus back up the 200 foot hill with the shopping the cost would be £1.50. However by Gingerbus1991's view I ought to be driving anyway as I have had the termerity to pass my 65th birthday. However being an evil bus pass holder with no regard for his gerontophobia I will get some exercise as its market day and use my pass to get home.

 

[fowler9]

Start a campaign for the car park to be made chargeable and see how many colleagues agree with you!

I'd be happy if the company subsidised the cost of my travel like they currently do for motorists. I have put this to the company, will never happen though. Of course if you ask someone if they want to start paying for something they currently get for free they will say no. The car park dwarfs the office and I am effectively paying for hundreds of cars sat there doing nothing for 40 hours a week each. Is that fair?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The trip computer gives me 32mpg for the three mile round trip to my nearest supermarket, parking is free. Assuming walking one way and bus back up the 200 foot hill with the shopping the cost would be £1.50. However by Gingerbus1991's view I ought to be driving anyway as I have had the termerity to pass my 65th birthday. However being an evil bus pass holder with no regard for his gerontophobia I will get some exercise as its market day and use my pass to get home.

I think you've misread the comment. He said "My own controversial thoughts are to do with our government issuing concession cards to not just oaps, quite frankly many neds/chavs who are alkies, junkies or wasters will put people off using buses, perhaps many people are far more neutral in thought than I am but there will certainly be underlying thoughts by many to do with those reasons." That suggests not an issue with OAPs but the many other concessions for whom the reason they have a pass (alkies, junkies, wasters to quote the poster) results in anti social behaviour and is a deterrent to other bus users.

FWIW, the original question is "Does it matter if bus services reduce car usage but not car ownership?" and in some respects, it is a "flawed" question. Each property could have two cars, parked in their garage/on drive/outside their house and if they're not used, what's the deal - aside from the issue of land use and roadside parking and the cost to the individual.

The reason why it's flawed is it approaches the issue from the wrong direction. Once people pass their test and purchase a car, how much public transport will they actually use when they have a substantial fixed cost and the marginal cost is relatively low. That and the immediacy and convenience of a car that can be employed as they wish. Car ownership is the gateway to reduced bus (and wider public transport) usage. Granted, we may have different personal experiences but people on this board are hardly typical - the average Joe will use a car if they've purchased one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd be happy if the company subsidised the cost of my travel like they currently do for motorists. I have put this to the company, will never happen though. Of course if you ask someone if they want to start paying for something they currently get for free they will say no. The car park dwarfs the office and I am effectively paying for hundreds of cars sat there doing nothing for 40 hours a week each. Is that fair?

It would put things on an even keel if free parking was to be a taxable benefit based on the cost of paying for it locally were no staff car park provided.

 

[radamfi]

The reason why it's flawed is it approaches the issue from the wrong direction. Once people pass their test and purchase a car, how much public transport will they actually use when they have a substantial fixed cost and the marginal cost is relatively low. That and the immediacy and convenience of a car that can be employed as they wish. Car ownership is the gateway to reduced bus (and wider public transport) usage. Granted, we may have different personal experiences but people on this board are hardly typical - the average Joe will use a car if they've purchased one.

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.

 

[Mikey C]

In the UK, with some exceptions, buses are mostly used if you don't access to a car or any other mode of transport. Ideally, however, buses and other local public transport should be a tool to cut road congestion and generally be an attractive alternative to the car. But does it matter if people continue to own cars but leave them at home to use the bus, or is it critical that people forego car ownership altogether?

Not sure why people are bringing up work car parks, as people who use them are using their cars to get to them!

Personally I have a car which I infrequently use, to me it's car usage not car ownership that's the main issue, especially as outside the inner city areas just about everyone has garages or driveways to park off road. Lots of people use public transport to get to work, but like the flexibility of having car as well, for longer journeys where public transport is inconvenient, for carrying large amounts of stuff etc

As I live in London, not being able to park is a major reason for using public transport. I could drive to my sports centre (it's too far to walk), but as there's no street parking at all in the area (residents parking AND no spaces anyway) I use the bus as it's easier.

 

[Dai Corner]

I'd be happy if the company subsidised the cost of my travel like they currently do for motorists. I have put this to the company, will never happen though. Of course if you ask someone if they want to start paying for something they currently get for free they will say no. The car park dwarfs the office and I am effectively paying for hundreds of cars sat there doing nothing for 40 hours a week each. Is that fair?

I've worked in places with things like free/subsidised canteens, free showers and secure parking for cyclists or free sports and social clubs but not taken advantage of those facilities. Should I have asked for a higher salary?

 

[fowler9]

Not sure why people are bringing up work car parks, as people who use them are using their cars to get to them!

Personally I have a car which I infrequently use, to me it's car usage not car ownership that's the main issue, especially as outside the inner city areas just about everyone has garages or driveways to park off road. Lots of people use public transport to get to work, but like the flexibility of having car as well, for longer journeys where public transport is inconvenient, for carrying large amounts of stuff etc

As I live in London, not being able to park is a major reason for using public transport. I could drive to my sports centre (it's too far to walk), but as there's no street parking at all in the area (residents parking AND no spaces anyway) I use the bus as it's easier.

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.

 

[fowler9]

I've worked in places with things like free/subsidised canteens, free showers and secure parking for cyclists or free sports and social clubs but not taken advantage of those facilities. Should I have asked for a higher salary?

I don't know. Why are you asking me? I'm not asking for more pay. Other places I have worked have given travel loans that allow you to buy an annual pass and pay it back monthly out of your wage. Works out cheaper than buying monthly. They also did loans to buy a bike. I am currently paying for people to park for free, do you think that is fair?

 

[carlberry]

I don't know. Why are you asking me? I'm not asking for more pay. Other places I have worked have given travel loans that allow you to buy an annual pass and pay it back monthly out of your wage. Works out cheaper than buying monthly. They also did loans to buy a bike. I am currently paying for people to park for free, do you think that is fair?

You're not paying for it, the company is. They're offering a range of benefits that includes free parking (or that may be the only benefit they offer). Some companies offer free child care which only benefits a certain number of employees for example. You could suggest they start charging for it and redistribute the proceeds evenly among everybody however I suspect it's unlikely to be popular.

 

[fowler9]

You're not paying for it, the company is. They're offering a range of benefits that includes free parking (or that may be the only benefit they offer). Some companies offer free child care which only benefits a certain number of employees for example. You could suggest they start charging for it and redistribute the proceeds evenly among everybody however I suspect it's unlikely to be popular.

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.

 

[Dai Corner]

I've worked in places with things like free/subsidised canteens, free showers and secure parking for cyclists or free sports and social clubs but not taken advantage of those facilities. Should I have asked for a higher salary?

I don't know. Why are you asking me? I'm not asking for more pay. Other places I have worked have given travel loans that allow you to buy an annual pass and pay it back monthly out of your wage. Works out cheaper than buying monthly. They also did loans to buy a bike. I am currently paying for people to park for free, do you think that is fair?

I asked you because you said earlier

Yeah but what should be included in the cost of motoring should be the cost of using the car park at my place of work which is many times the size of the office. It should not be free. I fund my travel costs including where the bus/train is left hanging around when not in use. The people who leave their cars for free in the company car park don't get paid less than me.