OT: (LONG) Rail travel (and public transport). A radical proposal

[Tim Woodall]

I've had an idea (and three glasses of wine which is why I posted to the
does a bicycle wheel sink or swim thread

This is not intended to be "fair". It is likely to be of more benefit to
the more wealthy members of society. But the following is an idea I've
had as to how it might be possible to encourage some people to leave
their cars at home (or just drive to the nearest station) rather than
drive all the way to wherever they are going.

The goal is to make public transport roughly equivalent in costs to
using a car. Two of the big problems with many people using rail
transport are 1. it's marginal cost is significantly higher than using a
car and 2. it is almost impossible to estimate the cost of a journey
that you have never done before.

First some figures:
back in the late 90's I was self employed and driving a relatively high
milage. My running costs (this includes everything except the purchase
of the car) worked out at about 8p per mile. (As much of this expense
was tax deductable and I did a (suspiciously to the taxman) low personal
milage my accountant recommended I kept detailed records of every trip I
made and every receipt for money spent - most of my local personal
travel was done by bicycle)

Not so long ago I scrapped my car. It still had half a tank of fuel from
January when I scrapped it in May/June. Quick look through my records
makes me think this was probably costing me about 50GBP/month to leave
parked on the drive. During this period the car was sufficiently old and
had done a sufficiently high milage that there was no depreciation in value.
(Arguably it lost up to 500GBP in value. It would have cost me 500GBP to get
it through it's MOT - there was some tricky jobs expensive in labour
rather than parts - and I was told it would be worth about 500GBP with
12 months MOT. The council took it away and scrapped it for free. Over
the lifetime of the car it lost about 600GBP/year in depreciation)

So, as a first guess, it seems reasonable to say a basic car costs about
1000GBP/year fixed costs (including depreciation) and 10p/vehicle mile
running costs.

So I propose the following:

A national "public transport" card for 1000GBP/pa

This would entitle the bearer to:

. Any journey on public transport at a maximum cost of 10p/mile.

. The right for a number (to be determined) of people to travel with the
bearer at no additional cost.

. The right for the card to be used by a number (to be determined) of
named people. Note that any of the named people can use the card but the
card must be in the posession of the person using it at the time.

(These rules are designed to be as flexible as a car - actually they are
slightly more flexible because it is possible to post the rail card to
someone else if the person who wants to use it and the person who
currently has it are geographically separated for some reason)

There _may_ need to be some additional "Congestion charging". As this
stands, my getting one of these cards and paying a per-mile 10p charge
would cost me approximately the same as my season ticket [1]

However, congestion charging can be applied to all modes of transport.
Exactly how this should be structured is open for debate. I would
suggest having fixed periods of the day regardless of where you are
rather than attaching charging to particular routes so that again the
costs can be estimated before the journey is undertaken. If every city
centre has different times and routes that charging applies to then it
will just get everyone annoyed when they discover at the station that
"oh, theres a 5GBP surplus for using the West Coast Line between
Northampton and Rugby between 07:22 and 08:46" or alternatively,
discovering, as they drive up to their destination that Sunderland
charges 5GBP if you use any of the bridges between 8am and 9am.
[1] Actually I'm slightly odd in that I pay the extra to get an all
zones travel card on the underground despite the fact that it would be
cheaper for me to pay per journey as I like the convenience of not
having to buy a ticket. (generally I cycle across London)

I'm not quite sure how the milage should be calculated for public
transport. My own feeling is it should be point-point as the crow flies
for each leg of any journey. Therefore, if your local bus does 16 miles
through 5 villages to get to the station you will only pay the 5 mile
"direct" route. I can't see how an end to end charge could work
logistically and anyway cars can't always take the most direct route
either. (This still places the car at an advantage for local travel
because you will still pay the price in increased journey time but for
most long distance rail journey should favour the train because of it's
higher speeds)

My dream would be to sell about 5 million of these tickets. A
significant proportion may be parents buying them for their children
It's safer than a car or moped, it doesn't incur the insurance hikes,
it can be used before someone can legally drive, and, of course, it can
also be used by the parents when convenient. It won't be "Mum, can I
borrow your car" it will be "Son, can I borrow your railcard"

But some should also be people who would otherwise use the car. I don't
think this will reduce car ownership initially as I suspect many of the
early adopters will be people who can easily afford an extra 1000GBP.
They will probably still use their car locally (because it's quicker
than the bus and more convenient if you have stuff to carry) but might
start to use mixed mode car-train-bus/taxi for some trips. (and maybe
eventually we can encourage them to use a bicycle for part of their
journey)


Question: Do we wan't to encourage people to travel less or use cars
less? At these prices I would probably get one of these cards even if it
didn't affect my season ticket price at all. (Not certainly - the
marginal cost would have to be 5p/mile to ensure it)
Not counting my travel card journeys I make about 900GBP of journeys
per year. At 10p/mile + 1000GBP this would cost me about 1500GBP. But,
as a result of having the card I would probably make quite a lot of extra
journeys that I otherwise wouldn't have made. This would then mean that
I would probably spend more nights away in hotels and so would also be
spending more money in the economy.

One final thought. I think some new car purchases give cash back/free
insurance etc as incentives. Maybe, just maybe, some dealers might start
giving free rail cards as incentives.

Views? Opinions? Insults?

Tim.

 

[Jon Senior]

Tim Woodall [email protected] opined the following...
<snip>
> Views? Opinions? Insults?

Sounds interesting? The cynic in me says that it's too radical but I'd
back it.

How about the cost also providing the option for something similar to
the buy-a-bike-at-work-only-we-wont-tell-you-how-to-go-about-it scheme
that currently exists? ie. Purchasing a bike (or bike accessory like a
trailer) is discounted in some manner (possibly through a reduced tax
payment).

Jon

 

[Richard Goodman]

"Tim Woodall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> So I propose the following:
>
> A national "public transport" card for 1000GBP/pa
>
> This would entitle the bearer to:
>
> . Any journey on public transport at a maximum cost of 10p/mile.
>
> . The right for a number (to be determined) of people to travel with the
> bearer at no additional cost.
>
> . The right for the card to be used by a number (to be determined) of
> named people. Note that any of the named people can use the card but the
> card must be in the posession of the person using it at the time.
>

I'm sure £1000 a year for a railcard would be just too much to attract any
significant takeup - certainly not on the scale of £5 million a year!
How about a decent, cycle-friendly, subsidised integrated national rail and
bus network, with an annual half-price card for £75 that would entitle you
to 50% off all fares? Ie. something like the Swiss have got? Exactly like
the Swiss have got, in fact.

Rich

 

[[Not Responding]]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 21:16:52 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
<[email protected]> wrote:

snip
>
>The goal is to make public transport roughly equivalent in costs to
>using a car. Two of the big problems with many people using rail
>transport are 1. it's marginal cost is significantly higher than using a
>car and

Not entirely convinced this is the case for an average mix of trips.

>2. it is almost impossible to estimate the cost of a journey
>that you have never done before.

How about phoning the rail company and asking or using the many
internet booking services? Under your proposal you'd still have to
look up distances to calculate cost.

>First some figures:
>back in the late 90's I was self employed and driving a relatively high
>milage. My running costs (this includes everything except the purchase
>of the car) worked out at about 8p per mile.

That's a figure that I find somewhat hard to believe. At 80p a litre
you'd need an efficient car to cost this for the petrol alone. On top
of this you need to add in wear and tear (how many cars have tyres
alone at less than £100 a corner?). My records show a *marginal* cost
of about 20-25p a mile.

snip

>Not so long ago I scrapped my car. It still had half a tank of fuel from
>January when I scrapped it in May/June. Quick look through my records
>makes me think this was probably costing me about 50GBP/month to leave
>parked on the drive. During this period the car was sufficiently old and
>had done a sufficiently high milage that there was no depreciation in value.
>(Arguably it lost up to 500GBP in value. It would have cost me 500GBP to get
>it through it's MOT - there was some tricky jobs expensive in labour
>rather than parts - and I was told it would be worth about 500GBP with
>12 months MOT. The council took it away and scrapped it for free.

A small subsidy from the taxpayers, then.

>Over
>the lifetime of the car it lost about 600GBP/year in depreciation)

A car costing £10,000 would have to last nearly 17 years for that to
be true. Then add in the interest lost on £10,000 over 17 years had
you kept it invested - or, conversely, not borrowed it.

>So, as a first guess, it seems reasonable to say a basic car costs about
>1000GBP/year fixed costs (including depreciation) and 10p/vehicle mile
>running costs.

The AA at
http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/advice/advice_rcosts_petrol_table.jsp
have a very good breakdown of costs. Even for the cheapest car in
their table, they show that marginal cost is over 15p per mile. Older
cars would have higher marginal costs due to higher maintenance
requirements.

>So I propose the following:
>
>A national "public transport" card for 1000GBP/pa

A national railcard is already being campaigned for by several groups.
I think it is part of the Way-to-Go "manifesto".

>This would entitle the bearer to:
>
> . Any journey on public transport at a maximum cost of 10p/mile.

I can't find any metrics on current PT costs but the price of PT isn't
incomparable with motoring costs, even now.

In the past 5 months, I've travelled 986 miles by rail (in the UK) at
a cost of £393; giving a price of 40p per mile. However, that's all on
first class fully flexible ticketing.

By bus I've travelled 1633 miles for £279; 17p per mile. That's on a
real mix of tickets from singles to monthly passes.

Combining the two, I get a cost of 25p per mile (if I've added up
correctly). This is about the same as the marginal cost when I was
driving.

In this time I've also done 484 miles for £606 by taxi. Giving a rate
of £1.25 per mile.

Overall I've travelled 3606 miles for £1,288; 35p per mile. Had I kept
my car I would have spent £3383 in this time; 94p per mile.

You'll notice some discrepencies in these totals as within the
distance figures are quite a few walking and cycling miles, occasions
when I have been given a lift but would have driven. There are also a
few ferries in there but these are also reflected in the costs.

The aim of the exercise has been to measure the financial impact of
getting rid of a car so it only reflects journeys that would have been
done by car if I had one. Thus Waterloo<->South of France by FC rail
at £180 or so isn't in there.

> . The right for a number (to be determined) of people to travel with the
> bearer at no additional cost.

Doesn't make economic sense at peaks; you're essentially subsidising
group travel with solo travel. Off peak, tickets across the board are
cheaper so everyone benefits.

> . The right for the card to be used by a number (to be determined) of
> named people. Note that any of the named people can use the card but the
> card must be in the posession of the person using it at the time.

This happens in Germany.

snip
>
>There _may_ need to be some additional "Congestion charging".

And that's why the national railcard will never happen. Congestion and
loading is a problem on the railways *now* never mind the resulting
influx from a modal switch away from the car.

The only answer is to spread loads using pricing as the tool. The
combination of spreading peaks and maximising revenues leads to very
cheap tickets for those who are able to book off peak trips in
advance. Virgin have led the way in this and offer very, very cheap
tickets.

snip

>
>But some should also be people who would otherwise use the car. I don't
>think this will reduce car ownership initially as I suspect many of the
>early adopters will be people who can easily afford an extra 1000GBP.

And that's the problem; it will be very hard to attract car owners
away from cars with pricing. Once someone has invested ten or twenty
thousand pounds in one mode, they are reluctant to spend on anything
else - even if it is cheaper.

>They will probably still use their car locally (because it's quicker
>than the bus and more convenient if you have stuff to carry)

The "how will carry big loads" is a mental myth of the car dependant.
Just how often do you have a load that can't be delivered, can't fit
in a taxi and warrants owning a car for years rather than hiring a van
for a day?

>Question: Do we wan't to encourage people to travel less or use cars
>less?

Answer: Both.

>At these prices I would probably get one of these cards even if it
>didn't affect my season ticket price at all.

A point I haven't addressed yet is that to achieve the cheap rail
prices we see today, considerable subsidy is already needed. You don't
need to buy a railcard to travel for less marginal cost than to travel
by car.

Motoring should cost more, not rail travel cost less. Motoring costs
need to be made to reflect the external costs of driving. We need to
move closer to a level playing field between the modes. This means,
for instance that we'd see fines of 400,000 for a death on the road
just as we've seen recently for a death on the railways.

 

[Tim Woodall]

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 15:01:49 +0100,
[Not Responding] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 21:16:52 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>milage. My running costs (this includes everything except the purchase
>>of the car) worked out at about 8p per mile.
>
> That's a figure that I find somewhat hard to believe. At 80p a litre
> you'd need an efficient car to cost this for the petrol alone. On top
> of this you need to add in wear and tear (how many cars have tyres
> alone at less than £100 a corner?). My records show a *marginal* cost
> of about 20-25p a mile.
>

The worst year I had I got 52.9mpg. The best year I got 55.something.
I would reckon on 70000 miles per tyre at a cost of something like 70GBP.
each. (They were Pirelli P2000 tyres and searching on the web it looks
like this would probably have been the price for two tyres)

I can't remember exactly what the price of fuel was then but it was
something like 3GBP/gallon.

Insurance, tax and servicing came out at something like 1000GBP/year.

Say 30000 miles/year. I was self employed for just over 3 years and did
just over 100000 miles in the car in that period.

This give something like 9p/mile.

(Peugeot 205 Diesel '92 J reg)

Just for comparison I made an average of one trip to South London per
week. The round trip being 300 miles exactly. The return rail fare that
would get me in for 9am was 109GBP. It was cheaper (and I did it some of
the time) for me to drive down the night before, stay in a B&B and stop
for a meal on the drive home the next day than it was to take the train)

> snip
>
>>Not so long ago I scrapped my car. It still had half a tank of fuel from
>>January when I scrapped it in May/June. Quick look through my records
>>makes me think this was probably costing me about 50GBP/month to leave
>>parked on the drive. During this period the car was sufficiently old and
>>had done a sufficiently high milage that there was no depreciation in value.
>>(Arguably it lost up to 500GBP in value. It would have cost me 500GBP to get
>>it through it's MOT - there was some tricky jobs expensive in labour
>>rather than parts - and I was told it would be worth about 500GBP with
>>12 months MOT. The council took it away and scrapped it for free.
>
> A small subsidy from the taxpayers, then.
>
I suppose so. But I was talking to the guy who came to collect it and he
was saying that the council do it because otherwise people with cars
like mine will sell them for 50 quid or so. The buyer will get a dodgy
MOT and then abandon the car after 6 months and then it costs the
council far more to sort out an abandoned car. By the council collecting
them they can ensure that they don't reappear on the roads.

>>Over
>>the lifetime of the car it lost about 600GBP/year in depreciation)
>
> A car costing £10,000 would have to last nearly 17 years for that to
> be true. Then add in the interest lost on £10,000 over 17 years had
> you kept it invested - or, conversely, not borrowed it.
>
I've thrown away the docs now but IIRC the car cost me 6500 (2.5 years
old, 30000ish miles) and lasted me for just over 10 years

>>So, as a first guess, it seems reasonable to say a basic car costs about
>>1000GBP/year fixed costs (including depreciation) and 10p/vehicle mile
>>running costs.
>
> The AA at
> http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/advice/advice_rcosts_petrol_table.jsp
> have a very good breakdown of costs. Even for the cheapest car in
> their table, they show that marginal cost is over 15p per mile. Older
> cars would have higher marginal costs due to higher maintenance
> requirements.

Some of their number are absurd. 0.76pence/mile for tyres at the low
end? My partners BMW doesn't cost that. She's just replaced the tyres
because they were getting too old and they had done about 50000 miles
and passed an MOT. I don't remember exactly how much they cost but
it was under 80GBP each (replacing with the same type of tyre) BMW 316i
91 H reg.

The journey from here to Durham costs about 30GBP fuel and is about 270
miles so the 11.5 pence/mile seems reasonably athough I thought new cars
were meant to be more efficient.

Admittedly, neither of us will usually use a car for local journeys;
bus, walk or (for me) cycle is more common so we rarely use a car in
congested traffic.
>
>>So I propose the following:
>>
>>A national "public transport" card for 1000GBP/pa
>
> A national railcard is already being campaigned for by several groups.
> I think it is part of the Way-to-Go "manifesto".
>
>>This would entitle the bearer to:
>>
>> . Any journey on public transport at a maximum cost of 10p/mile.
>
> I can't find any metrics on current PT costs but the price of PT isn't
> incomparable with motoring costs, even now.
>
> In the past 5 months, I've travelled 986 miles by rail (in the UK) at
> a cost of £393; giving a price of 40p per mile. However, that's all on
> first class fully flexible ticketing.

How do you manage that? When I travel to Durham the _cheapest_ ticket I
can buy is 86.40 return (admittedly that is (fairly) flexible return but
there are never any of the cheaper ones on a friday evening.) I _once_ got
a 70GBP first class fixed journey ticket. A fully flexible standard
class ticket is 180GBP, and a fully flexible 1st class 280GBP)

>
> By bus I've travelled 1633 miles for £279; 17p per mile. That's on a
> real mix of tickets from singles to monthly passes.
>
The journey from Town to home is 1.10 by bus and is about 3 miles. (We
typically walk it one way and bus back. The bus is costing us 70p/mile.
The marginal cost of the car can be as much as 35p/mile and it would
still make sense to take the car rather than bus it each way. I think
it is typically 2.20 to park)

The bus from home to the station (1 mile) is (was a year ago) 1GBP.

My season ticket to London costs 2144GBP. When I cycle from home the
journey is 45miles round trip. I work 238 days per year (yeah, ****
holiday entitlement) which works out at 19.4 p/mile. If I subtract the
two miles per day from home to the station its 20p/mile. And that's the
bulk discount rate. The full fare after 9.30am is 9.90/day or 23p/mile.
Not sure what the price before 9.30am is. I think it's something like
15GBP single or 65p/mile. And this is standard class. I think a first
class season ticket is an extra 1000GBP. Never enquired about first
class "one off" tickets.

> Combining the two, I get a cost of 25p per mile (if I've added up
> correctly). This is about the same as the marginal cost when I was
> driving.
>
> In this time I've also done 484 miles for £606 by taxi. Giving a rate
> of £1.25 per mile.

From the station to home justs gets the taxi over its 2GBP minimum
charge. The journey is somewhere between 1 and 1.5miles.

>
> Doesn't make economic sense at peaks; you're essentially subsidising
> group travel with solo travel. Off peak, tickets across the board are
> cheaper so everyone benefits.
>
KX to Durham. Friday 7pm,8pm,9pm,10pm returning Sunday afternoon 16:12.
86.40 per person. Catch a train before 7pm and it's more. I usually take
the 7pm train and will typically spend another 40-50GBP having a meal in
the restaurant car. Yes, it's a very nice way to travel. (but they don't
change the menus often enough or have enough choices (No restaurant
car on the 9pm or 10pm trains)

The last bank holiday I booked so far in advance I couldn't book by
telephone and had to do it on the internet. The price. Yes, you guessed
it, 86.40. Usually, I can't book more than a couple of weeks in advance
because I don't know exactly which weekend I will want to travel. So I
tend to book pretty close to the travel date - after all, I don't see
why they should be earning interest on my money if it's not going to
save me anything anyway.

>>
>>There _may_ need to be some additional "Congestion charging".
>
> And that's why the national railcard will never happen. Congestion and
> loading is a problem on the railways *now* never mind the resulting
> influx from a modal switch away from the car.
>
But there is the potential for more capacity at least for some routes.
This week Silverlink trains have stopped running North of Northampton.
One effect for me is that my 06:43 service has gone from "usually get a
seat" to "generally not have to sit right next to someone" because it
has gone from 4 carriages to 8. The 06:46, which actually gets into
Euston earlier, is still four carriages and is standing room only if I
miss the 06:43. Watford and Euston at least can take 12 carriage trains
although I'm not sure that the particular trains they run can be used in
a twelve carriage configuration as I've never seen one set up like that.

> The only answer is to spread loads using pricing as the tool. The
> combination of spreading peaks and maximising revenues leads to very
> cheap tickets for those who are able to book off peak trips in
> advance. Virgin have led the way in this and offer very, very cheap
> tickets.
>
> snip
>
>>
>>But some should also be people who would otherwise use the car. I don't
>>think this will reduce car ownership initially as I suspect many of the
>>early adopters will be people who can easily afford an extra 1000GBP.
>
> And that's the problem; it will be very hard to attract car owners
> away from cars with pricing. Once someone has invested ten or twenty
> thousand pounds in one mode, they are reluctant to spend on anything
> else - even if it is cheaper.
>
>>They will probably still use their car locally (because it's quicker
>>than the bus and more convenient if you have stuff to carry)
>
> The "how will carry big loads" is a mental myth of the car dependant.
> Just how often do you have a load that can't be delivered, can't fit
> in a taxi and warrants owning a car for years rather than hiring a van
> for a day?
>
It's more convenient by car. We usually walk and/or internet shop but
when we do take the car we always say "isn't it easier when you take
the car"

>>Question: Do we wan't to encourage people to travel less or use cars
>>less?
>
> Answer: Both.
>
>>At these prices I would probably get one of these cards even if it
>>didn't affect my season ticket price at all.
>
> A point I haven't addressed yet is that to achieve the cheap rail
> prices we see today, considerable subsidy is already needed. You don't
> need to buy a railcard to travel for less marginal cost than to travel
> by car.
This isn't my experience. Virgin Atlantic Upper Class LHR-JFK costs
about 25p/mile return. GNER First class KX-Durham return costs about
50p/mile.
Taking your AA pages prices for the small car gives a marginal cost of
15.21/mile. KX-Durham return 16p/mile. And if you only want to do
KX-Durham one way its 32p/mile.

We recently did Watford-Oxford return. I only had to pay from zone 6 due
to my travel card and my partner got a third off her ticket. It was
still 30p/mile for the two of us(combined). (Actually I suppose it is less
than this as we had to go via Euston and Paddington) And this was Saturday
out, Sunday back travel. And the next day Monday noon - Monday afternoon
(bank holiday) booked in advance KX-Durham ticket cost - you'd never guess
- 86.40. What is off peak exactly?

Tim.

 

[Sniper8052]

I love the idea. I get free travel on the trains but don't use it because it would take three hours + to do my daily commute of 1hr 20mins but it does sound a cracking idea.
Sniper8052

 

[[Not Responding]]

When the costs of car vs car-free transport are compared, it soon
becomes apparent that the outcome is heavily dependant on personal
travel patterns.

The purpose of my post was to point out that rail travel is already
subsidised to the point where it is comparable with motoring costs.
Even comparable to marginal motoring costs.

The average annual mileage of a car in the UK is 9,300 miles (2003).
The average distance travelled by a person by car is a lot less.

So in your case, doing 30k per annum of private mileage, you may well
be better off financially if you keep the car. Can't be much fun,
though.

In your proposal you suggest that group travel is an issue that forces
people to stick to using cars. While browsing around I found that in
2003 the average occupancy of a car is 1.2 and that nearly 70% of
trips are made by driver only. So group travel is not a major driver
in modal choice.

The only summary of average rail costs that I could find was from the
ETA:

"Our research shows that the average train journey costs 12p per mile,
the average bus journey costs 20p per mile, the average taxi journey
costs £1.10 per mile and walking is free.

People who travel less than 2,000 miles a year are better off selling
their car and traveling everywhere by taxi, the cost being £1.10 per
mile, representing a total annual saving of £280.

People who travel 5,000 miles a year by car are better off selling
their car and traveling a third of their miles by taxi, a third by
train and the remaining third by bus, the cost being 47p per mile,
representing a total annual saving of £600."

 

[Richard Goodman]

" [Not Responding] " <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> When the costs of car vs car-free transport are compared, it soon
> becomes apparent that the outcome is heavily dependant on personal
> travel patterns.
>

Not only personal travel patterns. Also on what sort of car you buy, how you
finance it, and how long you keep it, where you live, how old you are and
how you drive! Those who buy new, or on credit, are going to immediately
lose a lot on interest and depreciation. Other considerations apply to
insurance costs etc.

> The purpose of my post was to point out that rail travel is already
> subsidised to the point where it is comparable with motoring costs.
> Even comparable to marginal motoring costs.
>

But if the outcome is dependant on personal factors, then all you can do is
perhaps demonstrate how things work out 'on average'. The problem is that
averages don't necessarily describe the reality for _majorities_. This is
one of the confusions of statistics - people think of averages as what 'most
people' experience but that is not necessarily so - a few extremely high
earners for example, among a very large number of low earners, can give a
totally misleading impression as to what most people are living on if you
simply look at the average. 'Most people' may not spend as much on their
cars as the 'average' car user either. I certainly don't.

In any case, if you compare per mile rail costs in the UK to per mile costs
in Europe, I am sure you will find that the UK is relatively expensive, for
a relatively poor service. Rail transport in the UK is nowhere near well
subsidised enough, IMO.

> The average annual mileage of a car in the UK is 9,300 miles (2003).
> The average distance travelled by a person by car is a lot less.
>

That sounds odd to me. I would have thought that in many cases cars are
owned by sole drivers, who may nevertheless travel at least occasionally
with other people in their cars. Certainly it is so in my case - I do more
miles by car than my car does miles! Is that statistic taking into account
taxis? You need to look at private motoring miles.

> In your proposal you suggest that group travel is an issue that forces
> people to stick to using cars. While browsing around I found that in
> 2003 the average occupancy of a car is 1.2 and that nearly 70% of
> trips are made by driver only. So group travel is not a major driver
> in modal choice.
>

But it is a factor, and even if people might not be attracted out of the
cars as single travelers, they are definitely driven into them when it comes
to group travel. And once you've committed to the fixed costs of car
ownership for group travel purposes, the relatively low cost of actually
getting somewhere - basically just petrol/parking costs - is easily going to
make rail travel look expensive even for the single traveler. If you want
to attract single travelers onto trains, you may well need to make group
rail travel cheaper as well.

> The only summary of average rail costs that I could find was from the
> ETA:
>

And then what follows describes ETA's idea of averages, which completely
fails to describe anyone's individual reality. What might be more useful
would be case studies showing different types of household, car ownership
and travel patterns that people might at least be able to identify
themselves with and say, 'hey, that looks like me'.

Rich

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:13:39 +0100, " [Not Responding] "
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>The purpose of my post was to point out that rail travel is already
>subsidised to the point where it is comparable with motoring costs.
>Even comparable to marginal motoring costs.

But dependent, as you say, on the individual travel pattern.

My annual season ticket from Reading to Didcot is £900. If I ran a
car, assuming about 35mpg, it would cost me somewhere between £750 and
£900 per year to get to work (a bit vague because the mileage depends
on which route I take and how many days I go to London). So even if I
already had a car, the extra service incurred by driving 10k miles a
year commuting would almost certainly still leave me better off going
by train. Of course, I don't have a car at my disposal, so I have
saved the depreciation and finance costs of that car (I always buy
cars for cash, but the cash would otherwise be offset against my
mortgage).

Conclusion: taking the train saves me a packet, even under the current
regime. Especially since the season ticket is bought with an
interest-free loan from work.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:13:39 +0100, " [Not Responding] "
<[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

>When the costs of car vs car-free transport are compared, it soon
>becomes apparent that the outcome is heavily dependant on personal
>travel patterns.
>
>The purpose of my post was to point out that rail travel is already
>subsidised to the point where it is comparable with motoring costs.
>Even comparable to marginal motoring costs.
>
>The average annual mileage of a car in the UK is 9,300 miles (2003).
>The average distance travelled by a person by car is a lot less.
>
>So in your case, doing 30k per annum of private mileage, you may well
>be better off financially if you keep the car. Can't be much fun,
>though.
>
>In your proposal you suggest that group travel is an issue that forces
>people to stick to using cars. While browsing around I found that in
>2003 the average occupancy of a car is 1.2 and that nearly 70% of
>trips are made by driver only. So group travel is not a major driver
>in modal choice.

Except that, if you buy a car for group leisure journeys, you only
need to count marginal costs for eeryday one-person uses, like
commuting :-(


>
>The only summary of average rail costs that I could find was from the
>ETA:
>
>"Our research shows that the average train journey costs 12p per mile,
>the average bus journey costs 20p per mile, the average taxi journey
>costs £1.10 per mile and walking is free.
>
>People who travel less than 2,000 miles a year are better off selling
>their car and traveling everywhere by taxi, the cost being £1.10 per
>mile, representing a total annual saving of £280.
>
>People who travel 5,000 miles a year by car are better off selling
>their car and traveling a third of their miles by taxi, a third by
>train and the remaining third by bus, the cost being 47p per mile,
>representing a total annual saving of £600."
>

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:41:27 GMT, Gawnsoft
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>if you buy a car for group leisure journeys, you only
>need to count marginal costs for eeryday one-person uses, like
>commuting :-(

That deep ends. In our case we used to have two MDGs and now have
one, so have realised Actual Savings. This is only possible because
I rarely use the car for travel to work (as in, less than half a dozen
times a year).

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Call me Bob]

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:13:39 +0100, " [Not Responding] "
<[email protected]> wrote:

>People who travel less than 2,000 miles a year are better off selling
>their car and traveling everywhere by taxi, the cost being £1.10 per
>mile, representing a total annual saving of £280.
>
>People who travel 5,000 miles a year by car are better off selling
>their car and traveling a third of their miles by taxi, a third by
>train and the remaining third by bus, the cost being 47p per mile,
>representing a total annual saving of £600."

Better off how though? Financially yes, maybe, but that's not the only
consideration here. For many people it's probably not even the most
important one.

Using public transport very often means much longer journey times, and
increased ****-about factor. My time is my most valuable asset, and
those stats ignore it completely.

Public transport needs to... err... just work better, then people will
use it.
--

"Bob"

'The people have spoken, the bastards'

Email address is spam trapped.
To reply directly remove the beverage.

 

[[Not Responding]]

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:54:00 GMT, Call me Bob
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:13:39 +0100, " [Not Responding] "
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>People who travel less than 2,000 miles a year are better off selling
>>their car and traveling everywhere by taxi, the cost being £1.10 per
>>mile, representing a total annual saving of £280.
>>
>
>Better off how though? Financially yes, maybe, but that's not the only
>consideration here. For many people it's probably not even the most
>important one.
>
>Using public transport very often means much longer journey times, and
>increased ****-about factor. My time is my most valuable asset, and
>those stats ignore it completely.

My most valuable asset too; also my employer's. Neither they nor I are
happy if my time is spent doing the work of a driver.

I'm talking rail & taxi combos here; buses are workhorses rather than
a pleasant place to spend time. Most of my trips are comparable in
time whether by rail or car. The difference is that I get to *use* the
time. That use might be productive and work orientated or it might be
reading a book, usenetting & browsing or (in a few trains) having a
(half) decent meal.

Some trips *do* take longer but I've yet to come across a differential
that would make me want to go back to driving.

There's usually a bar (or a trolley service at worst) so you can even
get a bit ****** if you fancy.

>Public transport needs to... err... just work better, then people will
>use it.

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:45:06 +0100,
[Not Responding] <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm talking rail & taxi combos here; buses are workhorses rather than
> a pleasant place to spend time.

Buses may not be that pleasant but I sometimes used to catch a bus to and
from work, especially if the weather was **** or I had a heavy night, and
I got a lot of reading done on the bus. Which might explain why I have to
try and budget for another 100 linear feet of shelf space.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Call me Bob]

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:45:06 +0100, " [Not Responding] "
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>Using public transport very often means much longer journey times, and
>>increased ****-about factor. My time is my most valuable asset, and
>>those stats ignore it completely.
>
>My most valuable asset too; also my employer's. Neither they nor I are
>happy if my time is spent doing the work of a driver.
>
>I'm talking rail & taxi combos here; buses are workhorses rather than
>a pleasant place to spend time. Most of my trips are comparable in
>time whether by rail or car. The difference is that I get to *use* the
>time. That use might be productive and work orientated or it might be
>reading a book, usenetting & browsing or (in a few trains) having a
>(half) decent meal

That's a fair point, time spent on a train can be used more
effectively, even if it's just to doze and rest, than when in a car.
However, I wonder what percentage of public transport journeys are
work related (excluding commuting, which is done on *our* time)?

Do we want a public transport system designed for business travel or
for a wider brief?

I think cost is utterly secondary to PT being practical and
convenient, which very often, it just ain't.

I realise that cost of use affects the resources available to allow PT
to become more practical and convenient, but of course that's not a
direct relationship nowadays. There are troughs and snouts to be
factored in to the equation.

Public transport in Britain is effectively broken, and I can't see
anyone who's going to fix it. There's plenty of tinkering going on
around the margins of course, but that isn't anywhere near enough.
Something radical will have to happen.

>There's usually a bar (or a trolley service at worst) so you can even
>get a bit ****** if you fancy.

I won't pay the prices they ask for a beer on trains. I'd feel as if I
were consenting to being bent over and buttf*cked.

Each time I go into a platform snack bar thingy for a sandwich and a
drink, I'm so astonished and insulted at the prices being asked I feel
like smacking the manager in the mouth.
--

"Bob"

'The people have spoken, the bastards'

Email address is spam trapped.
To reply directly remove the beverage.

 

[James Annan]

Call me Bob wrote:


> That's a fair point, time spent on a train can be used more
> effectively, even if it's just to doze and rest, than when in a car.
> However, I wonder what percentage of public transport journeys are
> work related (excluding commuting, which is done on *our* time)?
>
> Do we want a public transport system designed for business travel or
> for a wider brief?
>
> I think cost is utterly secondary to PT being practical and
> convenient, which very often, it just ain't.

The time has a value even on personal trips. For me, it depends on how
much longer the PT trip is, versus the proportion of 'useable' time.
Well, actually it doesn't at the moment, as I have no car anyway, but it
is something I think about when I consider buying or renting one. A
typical trip to the mountains takes about 6-7h by PT versus 4 by car -
but using a car would mean I have to return to the same point and drive
home knackered rather than snooze or read a book.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 20:10:29 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

>On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:41:27 GMT, Gawnsoft
><[email protected]> wrote in message
><[email protected]>:
>
>>if you buy a car for group leisure journeys, you only
>>need to count marginal costs for eeryday one-person uses, like
>>commuting :-(
>
>That deep ends. In our case we used to have two MDGs and now have
>one, so have realised Actual Savings. This is only possible because
>I rarely use the car for travel to work (as in, less than half a dozen
>times a year).

True. In our household we've now been rid of all cars for about 6
years.

Although now there are three of us we do tend to hire one for away
weekends.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[Richard Goodman]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My annual season ticket from Reading to Didcot is £900.

Hmm. So let's say if you have six weeks holiday a year including bank hols,
and maybe miss another week for various reasons, that leaves 45 weeks of the
year when you use the ticket, which works out to a nice round £20 per week.
It would cost me more than that just to travel from one side of London to
the other with a tube season ticket!

Anyway, yes I am sure there are already lots of train commuters who are not
doing so purely because they are charitably inclined towards the rail
companies, and who would happily be the first beneficiaries of lower fares.
That still leaves the question of how to get more people to give up their
cars in favour of public transport? Not everyone can get £900 interest free
loans from their employers or afford that much as a lump sum payment. That
£5.70 standard day return has to compete against ~ £3.50 worth of petrol,
with a car that you might already own for leisure and family travel purposes
anyway, and with which you can sit cocooned in your own private
airconditioned space....

Rich

 

[Tumbleweed]

"Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> My annual season ticket from Reading to Didcot is £900.
>
> Hmm. So let's say if you have six weeks holiday a year including bank
> hols, and maybe miss another week for various reasons, that leaves 45
> weeks of the year when you use the ticket, which works out to a nice round
> £20 per week. It would cost me more than that just to travel from one side
> of London to the other with a tube season ticket!
>
> Anyway, yes I am sure there are already lots of train commuters who are
> not doing so purely because they are charitably inclined towards the rail
> companies, and who would happily be the first beneficiaries of lower
> fares. That still leaves the question of how to get more people to give up
> their cars in favour of public transport? Not everyone can get £900
> interest free loans from their employers or afford that much as a lump sum
> payment. That £5.70 standard day return has to compete against ~ £3.50
> worth of petrol, with a car that you might already own for leisure and
> family travel purposes anyway, and with which you can sit cocooned in your
> own private airconditioned space....
>

....whereas, in many places, if more than another 3 or 4 people tried getting
a train at peak time, they wouldnt have a place at all as they woudnt be
able to fit on. Until some significant money is put into the rail
infrastructure its a pipe dream to think that you could persuade people to
use public transport through making it cheaper. Making it practical is whats
needed.

I live near Reading, two of my local rail stations have car parks that are
literally completely full by about 830 with no nearby parking at all (not
even free parking, just *anywhere* to park). And the trains at rush hour are
literally jam packed. I doubt you could get more than 5% extra on and even
if you did, that would mean that 5% wouldnt be able to get on further down
the line.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:34:51 +0100, "Richard Goodman"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>I am sure there are already lots of train commuters who are not
>doing so purely because they are charitably inclined towards the rail
>companies, and who would happily be the first beneficiaries of lower fares.

The queue is over here <waves>

I think most people who commute by train do so on the grounds that it
is quicker and less expensive than driving. Even the £2,500 per
quarter from Reading to central London is cheaper than driving in and
parking, and you can comfortably knock most of an hour each way off
the journey time going by train. The rare occasions when the train is
delayed are more than outweighed by the far from rare occasions when
there are massive traffic jams due to crashes or "sheer weight of
traffic" (a phrase which irritates me beyond measure as I think it
should be volume, and the word sheer is redundant).

>That still leaves the question of how to get more people to give up their
>cars in favour of public transport?

>Not everyone can get £900 interest free
>loans from their employers

Most decent-sized firms do season ticket loans, IME. It's encouraged
by the Govt. and made easy for them by Inland Revenue.

>or afford that much as a lump sum payment. That
>£5.70 standard day return has to compete against ~ £3.50 worth of petrol,
>with a car that you might already own for leisure and family travel purposes
>anyway, and with which you can sit cocooned in your own private
>airconditioned space....

My train is air conditioned, and I can read a book while travelling
through the countryside at 80mph, with the same people every day. A
happy little club It is a very civilised way to travel.

Not that I disagree with the idea of pricing all forms of travel
according to their real costs to the economy, and to promote greener
choices (including making travelling more expensive overall, to
discourage long commutes), but I think the car industry have better
marketing.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University