Re: "It's Greener by Car" - Times story
- From: The Good Doctor <docnews2011@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:53:36 -0700
On 13 Jul, 23:44, JL <brc...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
When cars are stuck in congestion, the CO2 emissions really start to
mount. The biggest obstacle to overcome is the additional cost per
person when taking the train, versus when taking the car, each extra
passenger is virtually free.
Compare the two cheapest prices for Birmingham to Edinburgh (return)
Family of 2 adults, 2 children, Family Railcard: £57.80
YP: £22.40
600 miles (return), 40 mpg (high fuel efficiency).
Standard Family Car: Vauxhall Zafira, 6.8 miles/litre
88 litres used, £1/litre
£88 Petrol cost, but same price for 1 or 7 passengers.
It's a wonder why people still drive when even it's up to four times
as expensive (and that's not counting road tax, depreciation, cost of
purchace etc)
If someone owns a car, they quite reasonably treat fixed annual costs
such as insurance, vehicle duty and depreciation as an overhead. I
find that allowing for all mileage-related costs, including additional
depreciation, repairs, servicing, replacement tyres and exhausts etc.
means adding about 50% to the fuel cost, giving a total of 1.50 x £88
= £132.
Now look at the rail fares. An Standard Open Return costs £149 and a
Saver Return costs £92. You also need to allow the cost of taxis to/
from the origin and destination of the journey, say another £40,
making the rail cost £189 for the SOR and £132 for the Saver.
The car is clearly cheaper than the SOR. The Saver costs the same as
the car.
Most people would put an even greater value on having the car to make
local trips at their destination and to carry everything they need in
their own private, air conditioned space.
As for the more heavily discounted tickets, they come with
restrictions that just don't apply to the car. The cost of the car
remains essentially unchanged whether you travel peak or off-peak, day
or night, weekday or weekend, and however many people travel up to the
seating capacity of the car.
So the issue is whether you are prepared to trade the personal comfort
and independence that the car brings for the financial saving, bearing
in mind the often severe restrictions that apply to discounted
tickets.
Those who quote the lower stress level of rail journeys conveniently
omit to mention the stress of getting to and from the railway stations
at each end of the journey, the worry of not being able to get a seat,
the stress of sitting next to or within earshot of some pretty
obnoxious people, the stress of having to deal with surly and over-
officious rail staff (regardless of TOC), the difficulty of finding
space for more than the most modest amount of luggage ... and I
haven't even begun to consider the stress of delays, cancellations and
missed connections.
So I don't find it in the least surprising that the vast majority of
people choose to use the car instead. The low level of the fares you
chose to quote just goes to show how difficult it is to get people to
choose the train over their car.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "It's Greener by Car" - Times story
- From: Alistair Gunn
- Re: "It's Greener by Car" - Times story
- From: Roland Perry
- Re: "It's Greener by Car" - Times story
- References:
- "It's Greener by Car" - Times story
- From: Rick Hughes
- Re: "It's Greener by Car" - Times story
- From: Paul Scott
- Re: "It's Greener by Car" - Times story
- From: Ken Ward
- Re: "It's Greener by Car" - Times story
- From: tonymiles
- Re: "It's Greener by Car" - Times story
- From: JL
- "It's Greener by Car" - Times story
- Prev by Date: Re: Ranger ticket publicity - at last
- Next by Date: Re: OK So What Now for the Class 180s?
- Previous by thread: Re: "It's Greener by Car" - Times story
- Next by thread: Re: "It's Greener by Car" - Times story
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|