Re: Cars make more economic sense than transit: (Not the facts)

["M.B. and C.M.McDonald" <michael.and.colleen.mcdonald@xtra.co.nz>]

Must be about time for me to don my flameproof suit and throw in my tuppence
worth.

Most people do not appreciate how much owning and running a car really
costs.  I keep a record of all costs directly associated with my car.  These
costs are well under the estimates of the Automobile Association which also
includes other indirect costs like loss of interest on the money that you
would have had if you didn't own the car etc.

The bottom line is ... total cost of $NZ0.32/km or $NZ509/month.  Petrol
accounts for 23% of this figure, depreciation 50%, and repairs/maintenance
27%.  Average distance travelled is 19,000km/year.  These figures have been
totalled over the past 6.5 years, and have not taken inflation during that
period into consideration.  Neither do they include parking costs
(fortunately I have been able to avoid these) or speeding tickets ;-)>  The
car, a Toyota Corolla, was purchased new ... second-hand cars have lower
depreciation, but cost more in repairs.

The cost of roads and their maintenance is another story, with (in NZ) money
coming from a variety of sources, cross subsidies, and all the other things
that go on.  That raises all sorts of questions - eg should traffic policing
be paid for by motorists?  After all, rail safety and traffic control is
paid for by fail operators.

The question of public transport is an interesting debate.  I'm not expert
on that, but here's a few thoughts.  While populations were scattered and
had plenty of room in which to live, personal transport was either Shanks'
Pony, a 4-legged beast of burden, or a boat of some description.  Once
people started living in larger groups, which provides certain benefits to
the community and the individual, the options for personal transport were
reduced, and the need for public transport arose.  Initially (correct me if
I'm wrong) this transport would have been "privately" operated.  The public
takeover of transport may have been in order to gain continuity of operation
and to give a more even distribution of services.

The community does benefit from public transport as it can, or at least
should be, a more efficient use of resources.  If you want two contrasts,
compare the the "Fieldays" at Mystery Creek in Hamilton with new stadium
being built in Wellington.  The "Fieldays" have an attendance of about
100,000 (might be up to 140,000 - I can't remember the precise figure)
spread out over 4 days.  There is a huge space set aside for parking (enough
for a farm or two), and some congestion (can't be specific here as I've
never been) is experienced on nearby roads.  A typical suburban railway
would be able to handle those crowds "no sweat".  On the other hand, the new
Wellington stadium has virtually no parking at all.  It is within walking
distance of the main railway station and there are elevated walkways from
the ends of the platforms to the stadium.

I believe public transport to be preferable to private, but there is a place
for private as well.  It's just that people don't realise how much private
transport really costs - they may wonder why they don't have as much money
as they think they ought to, but don't connect the two together.  I could go
on .. but I'll leave it there for the moment.

Cheers
Michael

k_vaughan2@hotmail.com wrote in message
<379c65a9.2440592@nntp.powerup.com.au>...
>On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:01:31 GMT, qldspeed-spamsevil@geocities.com
>(qldspeed) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:59:21 +1100, David Bromage
>><dbromage@omni.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Gibson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The "study" in question is undoubtedly bogus.  A visit to the Web
>>>> site will show that the loons who did the alleged "study" are fanatical
>>>> ecowackos who hate cars and modern, road-based transportation systems.
>>>
>>>So would a report by the NRMA saying the exact opposite be any more
credible?
>>>
>>>Rather than dismissing the report out of hand, I suggest you read it and
>>>challenge specific arguments within it.
>>
>>Mr. Gibson is right!  It would be hard to take such a report seriously
>>when you see the style of things that come out of Newman's unit.
>>
>It would be hard to take any report on motor vehicles from the NRMA
>seriously, considering they have the motoring public to protect from
>the truth between public transport and motor vehicles costs.
>
>One example it only costed me $30 on the train per week for a weekly
>from the Blue Mountains to Parramatta some time back and I think it
>would have cost a lot more to run a motor vehicle in the same distant.
>
>
>So is it the fact that cars make more economic sense then public
>transport I don't think so, another example the cost of such things as
>crashes for every death I heard cost $1,000,000.
>>I've got to say, they all look like "ecowackos" AND left wing loonies
>>to me for sure too, but the reader can be the judge... just look at
>>this...
>>
>>     http://wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au/ABOUT/staff.htm#Newman
>>
>>here's a few from the same stable...
>>
>> Local Matters: Perspectives on the Globalisation of Technology
>>(editor, 1995);
>> Markets, Morals and Manifestos: Fightback! and the Politics of
>>Economic Rationalism in the  1990s, (ISTP, 1992);
>>The WA Royal Commission: Did it Make a Difference?" in P. Weller,  et
>>al., Commissions of Inquiry in Australia
>>
>>Research interests include: the role of ideas and 'ideology' in
>>shaping public policy; the politics of Australian education policy
>>especially higher education policy; political education.
>>"Education Policy under Hawke 1983-1989", with D. Smart, in R. Stewart
>>and C. Jennett (eds)
>>Consensus and Restructuring: Hawke and Australian Public Policy
>>
>> 'Can We Build Better Cities?' (with Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy)
>>in Urban  Futures 3(2), 1994;
>>Transport, Housing and Urban Form, (with Newman and Kenworthy),
>>Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing and Community Services,
>>1992;
>>Transport Services for People with Disabilities , 3 vols., ACROD,
>>1994;
>>'Can We Overcome Automobile Dependence? Physical planning in an age of
>>urban cynicism', (with Newman and Kenworthy) in Cities, 12(1),
>>     1995;
>>'Access for All', Current Affairs Bulletin 71(4), 1995;
>>'Planning for Accessible Public Transport: Recent  Australian
>>Experience and its Lessons for New Zealand', New Zealand Journal of
>>Disability Studies, No. 2, 1996.'
>>
>>"Sex, God and Public Policy" St Mark's Review, 156;
>>"The Earth Charter and the Ethics of Sustainable Development" Current
>>Affairs Bulletin,;
>>"Post-Fordist People? Cultural Meanings of the New Production Systems"
>>Futures..
>>
>>
>>It's fairly self explanatory - (what the hell is ecofeminism anyway?)
>>but there's heaps more amusing reading on the actual web page - well
>>worth a look!
>>
>>Qldspeed
>>
>>>
>>>> >The report is available from Island Press (ISBN 1 55963 660 2), or see
>>>> >http://wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au/
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>David
>>
>>
>>
>