What does it take to get people to leave their car at home?

The strange thing is that if you get rid of your car then public transport is good value in comparison to the total cost of car ownership.

If you own a car then it's appalling value for a single journey.

When I got rid of my car I worked out it was costing me roughly £1750 in non fuel costs every year.

If you can commute by bike/foot that's a hell of a lot of bus/train/coach journeys to make before you're worse off without the car.

Rich_cb wrote:

The strange thing is that if you get rid of your car then public transport is good value in comparison to the total cost of car ownership. If you own a car then it's appalling value for a single journey. When I got rid of my car I worked out it was costing me roughly £1750 in non fuel costs every year. If you can commute by bike/foot that's a hell of a lot of bus/train/coach journeys to make before you're worse off without the car.

or 50 days at £35 a day to hire a car when needed, with then no need to worry about the hassle of servicing, MOT, cleaning, keeping a eye on the tyres etc.

What you and Rich are discussing is kind of what happens in London. For me to take three kids into town and back in the evening would be £3.30 on the bus (or less if I'd used the bus earlier as the price caps).  I've no idea what parking would cost, never having done it,  but however much plus the congestion charge (I think currently £15) means the marginal cost of public transport is lower.  

markieteeee wrote:

What you and Rich are discussing is kind of what happens in London. For me to take three kids into town and back in the evening would be £3.30 on the bus

We need to sort the train fares out too though, for my sister (who has MS so can't cycle), her husband and two adult kids, who live about as far out southwest as it's possible to get without leaving London, to visit us, a mile or so outside the CC zone, bus is impractical (three changes, two hours plus) and the train comes to £31 for the four, making driving using £2's worth of petrol a very attractive option.

Rendel Harris wrote:

markieteeee wrote:

What you and Rich are discussing is kind of what happens in London. For me to take three kids into town and back in the evening would be £3.30 on the bus

We need to sort the train fares out too though, for my sister (who has MS so can't cycle), her husband and two adult kids, who live about as far out southwest as it's possible to get without leaving London, to visit us, a mile or so outside the CC zone, bus is impractical (three changes, two hours plus) and the train comes to £31 for the four, making driving using £2's worth of petrol a very attractive option.

We need to seize the means of transportation. It's bizarre that public transport is run by profit obsessed companies.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

markieteeee wrote:

What you and Rich are discussing is kind of what happens in London. For me to take three kids into town and back in the evening would be £3.30 on the bus

We need to sort the train fares out too though, for my sister (who has MS so can't cycle), her husband and two adult kids, who live about as far out southwest as it's possible to get without leaving London, to visit us, a mile or so outside the CC zone, bus is impractical (three changes, two hours plus) and the train comes to £31 for the four, making driving using £2's worth of petrol a very attractive option.

We need to seize the means of transportation. It's bizarre that public transport is run by profit obsessed companies.

I can kind of get on board with for profit companies running transport. I can't get on board with guaranteed profits baked in regardless of service... then bleating that you "only" get 3%* profit when the cattle have the temerity to complain about shitty service.

Yes, I am bitter. It's also why I'm staying in front of zoom at home and not going back to the office.

*3% of what though you bastards, quote the amount you actually get you blood sucking leeches raaaaaaaaah

In 20 odd years of commuting by train I have seen trains in the southeast go through a number of companies, all of which have utterly screwed the customer and general tax payer over. Not to mention inflation busting rises every year, and service that is regulary cancelled and terminated mid way through a journey.

https://inews.co.uk/news/southeastern-train-scandal-govia-fined-conceali...

JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote:

I can kind of get on board with for profit companies running transport. I can't get on board with guaranteed profits baked in regardless of service... then bleating that you "only" get 3%* profit when the cattle have the temerity to complain about shitty service. Yes, I am bitter. It's also why I'm staying in front of zoom at home and not going back to the office. *3% of what though you bastards, quote the amount you actually get you blood sucking leeches raaaaaaaaah

Having public transport in the hands of profiteers means that we get situations where trains are designed to maximise the numbers of paying passengers and thus relegate bicycle transport to being a metal hook in a cupboard that only works for certain styles of bikes.

If we want to reduce the number of private motor vehicles on the roads (due to congestion, pollution etc) then we need to have transport solutions that work together i.e. joined up transport. That's unlikely to happen when buses and trains are effectively in competition with each other.

The alternative viewpoint is that cyclists are being given additional space on trains free of charge.

If that space could be used more profitably then cyclists are effectively being subsidised.

Rich_cb wrote:

The alternative viewpoint is that cyclists are being given additional space on trains free of charge. If that space could be used more profitably then cyclists are effectively being subsidised.

Well, I certainly don't have any issue with cyclists being subsidised. Meanwhile, push-chairs are also taking up extra room, despite most train companies specifying that push-chairs should be folded up for travel whilst on the train (and I don't have an issue with that as long as they're not hogging cycle specific space). This is the problem with for-profit transport - they are keen to optimise for the majority of passengers and are less inclined to allow for more flexibility e.g. tandems, hand-cycles etc.

In terms of mass transit, we should enable people to use public transport for part of the journey and cycle for some parts as that encourages active transport. However, that's a societial benefit rather than increasing shareholder profits for a minority.

Rich_cb wrote:

The alternative viewpoint is that cyclists are being given additional space on trains free of charge.

If that space could be used more profitably then cyclists are effectively being subsidised.

On many trains the space allowed to bicycles is actually there for wheelchair users who have priority. Of course both will have paid a fare so don't ride for free. In many years commuting by train and bicycle I rarely met a wheelchair user. However I'm happy to subsidize that mobility network and I believe most people are too.

hawkinspeter wrote:

We need to seize the means of transportation. It's bizarre that public transport is run by profit obsessed companies.

In London TfL have delegated the bus service to profit making companies because their experience with a union workforce e.g. Underground has been so bad. Thus the outsourcing of tube maintenance and the new Elizabeth Line trains being a service provided by the train owner who employ the drivers, not TfL.
So the long and short of it is that TfL will not employ a single person more than they have to, so default to outsourcing for all services that they can. TfL design the service, routes and licence the operators so that a public service is delivered. More employees and their pensions they do not want, can't afford.

lonpfrb wrote:

In London TfL have delegated the bus service to profit making companies because their experience with a union workforce e.g. Underground has been so bad. Thus the outsourcing of tube maintenance and the new Elizabeth Line trains being a service provided by the train owner who employ the drivers, not TfL. So the long and short of it is that TfL will not employ a single person more than they have to, so default to outsourcing for all services that they can. TfL design the service, routes and licence the operators so that a public service is delivered. More employees and their pensions they do not want, can't afford.

Personally, I don't see the problem with providing workers with a suitable pension. Unions can be a problem, but profiteers have historically been a far greater problem and we're now starting to reap the results of people seeking short term profits over long term sustainability.

When I visit London, I usually get the train from Bristol Paddington and then either walk or get the tube - I've found the tube to be quite effective. Not as nice as undergrounds in other cities (e.g. Paris, Berlin, Madrid etc), but reasonably short waits for the trains. The biggest problem I saw was the popularity of the underground - trains get seriously packed.

Fares could do with being more transparent and simplified. Southeastern actively deter you from contactless use, it isn't listed as the cheaper fare. With hybrid working an annual or monthly ticket isn't worthwhile. Cycling to the first station where I can use contactless a day travel card is £26.20. The contactless fare is £16.60 total, to and from work. If I leave early and manage to go off peak the morning journey is only £4.90 from Kent to Chiswick!

Definitely. Also there's the discrepancy of some fares being TfL and others not necessarily, meaning capped prices don't come into play.