[Closed] TJ is right (again)

And how much was tax and insurance back then? And what about the fact that wages have not followed inflation? Poor findings! These days you'd be lucky not to spend half the annual fuel costs in insurance alone.

So paying an extra 10% then? What about insurance and maintenance costs? And compared with the cost of public transport? Lothian bus tickets have gone up 100% in price in the 13 years I've been in Edinburgh.

And what about the fact that wages have not followed inflation?

Not really relevant to the story is it - separate argument.

Not really relevant to the story is it - separate argument.

It is entirely relevant - since wages have not followed inflation the real-terms cost of motoring has increased more than the 10% specified.

Isn't the fact that the 1980's petrol price is quoted in today's money mean that inflation has been taken into account?

ok

It is entirely relevant - since wages have not followed inflation

or am I missing something..?

It is entirely relevant - since wages have not followed inflation the real-terms cost of motoring has increased more than the 10% specified.

you seem to be getting cross that wages have dropped in real terms which affects how much money you have to spend. However the fact remains that the cost of fuelling a car has not changed much which is what the article says. Public transport has massively increased in real terms in the same period

Ps can you post up evidence that wages have dropped in real terms in the same period - Dont know tbh what the truth is

Pedant

since wages have not followed inflation the real-terms cost of motoring has increased more than the 10% specified

Isn't the fact that the 1980's petrol price is quoted in today's money mean that inflation has been taken into account?

Inflation, yes. But that's nothing to do with actual cost WRT average income.

or am I missing something..?

😆

And cars nowadays are prety good, needing a service every 15-20k. The average Cortina was rubbish and needed fixing every other weekend, finally expiring at about 75k.

"Back in the day"? You can keep it.

you seem to be getting cross that wages have dropped in real terms which affects how much money you have to spend. However the fact remains that the cost of fuelling a car has not changed much which is what the article says. Public transport has massively increased in real terms in the same period

Fair point, but it [OP] was in the context of "it's no different now to then".

Ps can you post up evidence that wages have dropped in real terms in the same period - Dont know tbh what the truth is

No, it was a figure I read somewhere, I've long since forgotten where I'm, afraid!

Ps can you post up evidence that wages have dropped in real terms in the same period - Dont know tbh what the truth is

Wages today are a smaller percentage of the GDP than they were 30 years (12% less I think) Don't ask me for a link though - the information is out there, somewhere.

And cars nowadays are prety good, needing a service every 15-20k. The average Cortina was rubbish and needed fixing every other weekend, finally expiring at about 75k.

I think that's somewhat displaced by the fact that when parts wear out on modern vehicles, or electrical faults develop, it can practically write-off a perfectly usable vehicle solely through cost. I'm not sure that was the case in the 70s.

i know the following is US data but is applicable to the UK
[url= http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September08/Findings/PercentofIncome.htm ]food expediture[/url]

Food is far cheaper now than it has been, as a percentage of income. so more money to spend on tat.

I think that's somewhat displaced by the fact that when parts wear out on modern vehicles, or electrical faults develop, it can practically write-off a perfectly usable vehicle solely through cost. I'm not sure that was the case in the 70s.

tell me about it..........

My 3.5 yr old Toyota needs new injectors - £1,238 😯

Lothian bus tickets have gone up 100% in price in the 13 years I've been in Edinburgh.

Make that 100% plus 10p, £1.30 a single now 🙁

Food is far cheaper now than it has been, as a percentage of income. so more money to spend on tat.

Yep, food in the UK, relatively speaking, is much cheaper than it was 30/40/50 years ago. Certain produce from third world countries such as cocoa, has remained unchanged for 30 years - despite chocolate prices in the UK having gone up in the last 30 years.

Don't know how much longer that will last though, probably not very long. Already cocoa has hit a thirty year high :

[url= http://www.choclatique.com/blog/?p=1448 ]Global Issues Are Driving Up the Price of Chocolate[/url]

uplink - why the hell does it need new injectors at that age ?

Yup - cars are cheap, driving is cheap. private motoring gets huge subsidies from the public purse.

Its electoral suicide to have sensible policies on this. So we will merely wait until change is forced upon us rather than sensibly plan for it and move towards the inevitable end of private motoring.

Cars are evil. That is all you need to know.

Make that 100% plus 10p, £1.30 a single now

I'm sure Colin will trump me on this, but cheapest adult bus ticket you could get when I moved to Edinburgh was 50p. I think day tickets were about £1.50 and a month bus pass was £30. Aye so in 13 years, tickets are now going to be £1.30 and £3.20 for a day. Luckily just got my 28 day pass (as a student!) for £43, so I'm guessing a full price one is £60?

Ker-razy!

uplink - why the hell does it need new injectors at that age ?

No idea, I'm hoping that Toyota help out with it, it's only done 38K

TJ is right (again)

[i]ok[/i]

I'm going for a lie down. Ernie_lynch accepted that he was wrong (didn't he?) (Don't ruin it for me)

TandemJeremy - Member
Yup - cars are cheap, driving is cheap. private motoring gets huge subsidies from the public purse.

Its electoral suicide to have sensible policies on this. So we will merely wait until change is forced upon us rather than sensibly plan for it and move towards the inevitable end of private motoring.

What's the sensible policy on this in your opinion?

TJ is right (again)

He's been right before?

😛 etc

I'm going for a lie down. Ernie_lynch accepted that he was wrong (didn't he?) (Don't ruin it for me)

Yes, if it makes you happy.

Personally I thought it was cause I couldn't be bothered. But if that is taken as me accepting that I was wrong, I'm ok with it.

What's the sensible policy on this in your opinion?

ratchet up the cost of motoring which in itself will slowly push change and use the money raised to subsidise public transport.

If petrol was £20 a gallon how long till cars did 100 mpg plus and how long until commuting long distances in cars becomes non-viable?

We will have to change as energy will get more expensive and especially oil based energy. It would be better to do this in a planned manner rather than waiting until forced. Get the alternatives in place now while there is spare money and time to do it

So TJ does that mean we will be limited by the range we travel if we only rely on public transport?

😮

I don't agree with ratcheting up the price of traditional fuels, that is not going to solve anything - especially as most people can't afford to move now (and speaking as a mobile engineer what I charge to service a pumping system would go up massively as I would have to cover those additional costs, the same would be true of anything transported by road or the services of anyone who had to travel by road).

What needs to be done is for the EU or National Governements to decide what the successor to oil is going to be once and for all rather than "leave it to the market", invest in that technology and the fueling/charging infrastructure to run it. People will then make the natural progression on cost and environmental gounds.

But it won't happen, so we are... indeed... all doomed.

capt kronos - there is no possible successor to oil. Energy will become more and more expensive, there is no sign of any practical way to provide the energy for personal transport

The timescale is decades. If we don't do something to change the reliance on high energy consuming personal transport then change will be forced upon us.

Far better to plan and provide for this change than to have it forced upon us

I don't want to see fuel made unaffordable overnight - it took a couple of generations to get where we are now, it will take at least a generation to change it to a more sustainable society not so reliant on inefficient high energy consuming personal transport

What public transport? It's fine for the urban elite who have public transport on their doorstep, but get out into rural areas, and you're lucky to have one bus out and back a day, and even then have a walk of a mile or more on narrow unlit lanes. TJ's obsession with a car-free society totally blinds him to the reality of what rural people have to deal with, and no amount of public subsidy will make a blind bit of difference. A work colleague lives six miles away, and currently takes a taxi as he is without a car at the moment. A bus would cost more, and a ten-fifteen minute drive takes over two hours in a bus, because of the route it takes. And as he starts work at 6am, does TJ imagine it would be possible to catch a bus at three in the morning? Or even five, if it took a shorter route? Give me a break.

What is TJ right about though? I don't get it.

I took the Number Forty Six Bus from Swiss Cottage to Grays Inn road today. Great little journey, highly recommended.

Went past, among other delights, St Pancras station, and Caymden Tahyn All!!!

[img] [/img]

Buses rawk! You can sit back and enjoy the journey.

Count - you so miss the point.

I agree it cannot be done overnight. However what you describe is exactly the kind of unsustainable lifestyle we will simply not be able to do in 50 years time

6 miles? Bicycle

I use to get a bus from a village into a town to work starting work at 6.30 am - mile walk, 7 miles in a bus, half mile walk.

Its feasible you know. Teh more people that use public transport the more feasable it is

How are you going to manage when you cannot afford the fuel for your car? it will happen in our lifetimes

When I started drinking in about 1992 and I could get 4 pints for a fiver. (John Smith's Magnet was ale of choice - lager was too dear). In real terms (i.e. correcting for inflation on RPI) it should be 2.06 a pint. Fortunately I now need about 1/3 less beer to get happily pished so it all balances out.

Oh, and the current job pays better than the Saturday and Sunday morning newsagent jobs I had back then.

I hope private motoring is reduced by healthier more sustainable alternatives being developed - don't want my kids having to live around motor culture. Not having to endure Clarkson would be a bonus.

Oh, and Edinburgh buses were 80p in 2002 when I moved here - allowing for inflation should be £1.06 now - not £1.30 as they will be next week....

I don't see any way that we can change the personal mobility that we now enjoy - but there are surely much easier and better ways to save energy anyway. We (the west) waste so much energy utterly needlessly (just noticed I have left the hall and kitchen lights on... ahem...) that there are vast savings to be made.

There will be ongoing personal mobility, there will be an alternative fuel... we can't turn the clock back on that one (well, we can - but 99.999% of the world will be hugely resistant to it).

That isn't to say that I think it would be a bad thing to make the world a more local orientated place. I actually quite like the idea. It just isn't going to happen! Whether we go electric, compressed air, methanol, hydrogen or something else that we haven't thought of yet, I am pretty sure that a solution will come along that allows business as usual.

Now - I best go and turn those lights off 😉

Are they energy saving bulbs though? Cos if they are, it's ok if you leave them on, because you're actually [i]saving[/i] energy. 😀

TJ - Nice theory on pushing us to public transport, but my wife's job and mine are around 60 mile apart. I suppose we could cycle (and do the TdF for light relief) but I think it actually make one of us unemployed or we only see each other at the weekends (and likewise our sons for one of us)

1qm
another who fails to grasp the basic point.

As oil runs out your lifestyle will become unsustainable.

Lets plan now for the day this will happen.

TJ - Nice theory on pushing us to public transport, but my wife's job and mine are around 60 mile apart.

I think the theory is that you could cycle to the nearest station, then get public transport to your workplace. It's not a bad theory, and I find myself agreeing with TJ on this one - like he says, it's not a short-term solution, but will probably be necessary in the long run. (Probably: cheap fusion power would solve the energy generation problem, allowing the continuing use of private transport. Whether that will happen in our lifetimes is debatable...)

mogrim - you cannot put a fusion generator in a car. That may solve the domenstic and industrial energy issues but cannot do so for private cars. There is no sign of an alternative way of powering private cars that comes anywhere close to the internal combustion engine

The theory is that you will not be able to sustain that lifestyle in future - lets plan for changes now and use fuel taxation to fund the change

I think the theory is that you could cycle to the nearest station, then get public transport to your workplace

What I've been doing for years.

Nice theory on pushing us to public transport, but my wife's job and mine are around 60 mile apart

It's a fairly modern (last 20 years? less?) development that people started driving 30, 40, 50, 60 miles to and from work every day. That was a change from the way it was before; it'll have to change again.

There is no sign of an alternative way of powering private cars that comes anywhere close to the internal combustion engine

The Flintstones would beg to differ.

I think either way we are going to have to start living closer to where we work rather than commuting epic distances so we can live somewhere nice.

As to not being an alternative that comes close to the internal combustion engine, you are probably entirely right... but internal combustion doesn't have to work on fossil fuels. Methanol is an option (there are processes to produce this from waste rather than growing biofuel crops), hydrogen is coming on again with the development of hydrogen microbeads that can be transported, stored and used much like a liquid fuel (British development too, which is nice) - if we got the hydrogen cracking process more sustainable (either through fusion or using dedicated renewables such as wind/wave at hydrogen plants....) then that could be a goer. Throw in fuel cells that can run on pretty much anything... with the right investment I think there is a solution. It won't be cheap mind!

TandemJeremy - Member

mogrim - you cannot put a fusion generator in a car. That may solve the domenstic and industrial energy issues but cannot do so for private cars. There is no sign of an alternative way of powering private cars that comes anywhere close to the internal combustion engine

What do you mean by that? Electric cars are already close. Small improvements to battery technology and it's there.
Then thorium or fusion power to boost the grid and it's job done.

lets plan for changes now and use fuel taxation to fund the change

TJ, you keep mentioning this change yet from what I can see you provide no solution. Just a way of raising the money for it.

mogrim - you cannot put a fusion generator in a car. That may solve the domenstic and industrial energy issues but cannot do so for private cars. There is no sign of an alternative way of powering private cars that comes anywhere close to the internal combustion engine

You don't put the fusion generator in the car, you put a rechargeable battery in the car. I am, of course, assuming that battery technology will also improve over time, and that the raw materials necessary are not a limiting factor.

electric cars are no where near close.

electric cars are no where near close.

They're not that far off. Even if they were, realistically replacing private transport with public is just as far off, as you yourself pointed out we're looking at middle to long term strategies.

TandemJeremy - Member

electric cars are no where near close.

Yes, they are. They'll already do a fair chunk of journeys undertaken daily. Improvements to the range, and quick charging (or battery renting/swapping) stations and they are 100% replacements.

I do think we need to be looking to replace oil as soon as possible, but I think that we should be investing heavily in research on replacement tech. If we act quickly this could also help secure Britain's position as a provider of high technology which still one of the few things we can actually do well.

[s]Not read the whole thread so this is an aside - electric cars might be less damaging if the grid is de-carbonised, but they still won't solve our traffic problems. Proper public transport everywhere is surely the way to go.[/s]

Scratch that - it shouldn't be an argument between electric cars and good public transport. They've both got their place. Invest in better technology in both sectors for the benefits Retro suggests?

There is no sign of an alternative way of powering private cars that comes anywhere close to the internal combustion engine

Because it has not been in the oil companies interest to resaerch and produce one. Look at the technological advances in other areas yet the car engine is still fundamentaly the same.

Modern life is built around people having the flexibilty to travel freely. In the major cities, a mass public transport system is a no-brainer however for others it is a non-starter. Yes other alternatives need to be investigated but there is no one size fits all.

The biggie is ensuring sensible future development of our towns and cities, but this [i]could[/i] all go pear shaped if the localism proposed for planning etc. isn't handled properly and ends up with towns with no shops or railway stations because of nimbyism. They announced in the budget proposals to make changes of use classifications easier, but if all that does is makes it easier for developers to close shops and amenities and turn them into shoebox flats, then you're in a worse situation where there's an even heavier reliance on public transport to make day to day life possible.

electric cars are no where near close.

Really?

Sports car that can do 245 miles and 0-60 in less than 4 secs for less than £100k, recharge in 3.5 hrs.

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/specs

depends whay you mean by close most journeys by car are relatively short and therefore an elctric car that can do 60 mile swill suffice form most folk and force us on to publci transport for longer journeys.
Perhaps look at doing something about single occupancy journeys as well or make us all go ack to buble cars with teeny engines for high mph.

ratchet up the cost of motoring which in itself will slowly push change and use the money raised to subsidise public transport

That's not a very social policy though is it? It'll make a lot of people very depressed and miserable as they struggle to adapt. It's the policy of the breadline again - if you make things people want progressively more expensive people will only change when they absolutely cannot afford it any more, which means that most people will be hovering around that threshold ie be strapped for cash all the time.

And in this case you have the additional issue that it's often very difficult for people to move. You're forcing them to either a) take a crappier job and/or b) move away from their friends or family, both of which can have serious negative implications for quality of life.

It's all stick, no carrot. I think it's much better to provide incentive for change by making the alternative better in real terms FIRST, not just making it appear better by making the original worse.

I agree with everything you say about the problem, I just don't agree with that particular solution.

And there are also inherent problems with public transport. The feasibility of public transport depends on population density. Densely populated areas are already pretty well served, and it'd be (relatively) easy to lay on more busses or increase train capacity etc. However for the more lightly populated areas it becomes EXPONENTIALLY more expensive to cover fewer and fewer people. So there is a practical limit on who can be covered even with big subsidies.

So then the people out in the sticks have to drive, but they have no choice but to be beaten with the same stick you use for city drivers.

most journeys by car are relatively short

Yeah and they are the ones that use up hardly any fuel, really. Proportionally, they use up more (which is why people moan about them), but because distances are low the actual amount of fuel used is not much.

Sports car that can do 245 miles and 0-60 in less than 4 secs for less than £100k, recharge in 3.5 hrs.

Total red herring. It's extremely easy to make an electric car go really fast - we've been making powerful electric motors for 100 years. It's extremely difficult to make them for a sensible price.

The Tesla roadster is a gimmick and gives nothing to the search for affordable electric cars. Their car would still cost a ton even if it was shaped like a Smart and was limited to 70mph. They made it that fast to justify the inevitable cost. Compare it to a Lotus Elise at a third the price.

That's not a very social policy though is it? It'll make a lot of people very depressed and miserable as they struggle to adapt.

Yeah but this is how the current situation came about. The price dropped over time and people adapted to it. There was no (well, little) explicit government direction, it was mostly just the market reacting.

The advantage of ratcheting up the price progressively is that it doesn't require the government to do too much - they don't need to plan everything in the world about how to solve the problem, they just let the market work out a response. And it's easy and transparent.

Because it has not been in the oil companies interest to resaerch and produce one. Look at the technological advances in other areas yet the car engine is still fundamentaly the same

That's not true. The automobile industry is a gigantic industry with millions of people working in it and trillions of dollars being spent on it every year. If you could invent an engine that was more efficient and captured even 1% of the global market, you'd generate a gigantic amount of money.

What TJ is proposing, although he may not realise it, is the urbanisation of almost the entire global population. It's the only way that you could provide a mass transit system that wouldn't be cripplingly expensive. Increasing urbanisation is already an accelerating phenomenon in the two-thirds world, although it usually results in the rural poor becoming the urban poor, living in vast shanty towns like Kibera. Having been there, it's not a prospect I relish in the same way as TJ.

Alongside that, you eradicate population mobility, and in all likelihood, social mobility as well unless you can somehow create a single tier society to accompany it.

I suspect the social impact of these changes would be cataclysmic. You're effectively proposing a return to the middle ages in terms of static populations, and limited movement of resources around the globe.

EDIT: If he's right, I think it's time to start stockpiling beans and shotgun shells in the basement.

April fool? ^^^^^^^^

you eradicate population mobility

The Tesla roadster is a gimmick and gives nothing to the search for affordable electric cars.

I think my point is that saying we're nowhere close isn't quite right - not saying we're their yet. BTW, I think it's better than a sportscar for 1/3rd the price.

what happened during the industrial revolution which occured before we had cars and after the dark ages you predict?

The rural poor became the urban poor.

is this an april fuel joke ?

what happened during the industrial revolution which occured before we had cars

For real?

Everyone moved from their villages to huge ugly over crowed and desperately impoverished slums to be near work. Did you think that was a good situation?

I think my point is that saying we're nowhere close isn't quite right

We are nowhere close. Like I say we could've built that car at any point within the last 20 years. Take the Nissan Leaf for instance - it's a small car, like a Honda Jazz more or less, but it costs 26 grand, which is double what it ought to. Halving that price is MASSIVELY difficult. It's not just a small hiccup.

my point is that we had population mobility without cars - which the posters claimed would stop without cars- -which is undeniably true. Were the conditions good? again undeniably no [generally] but that is another issue.
I suspect some people who move to London dont own a car etc It may be harder but it would not stop without the car.

my point is that we had population mobility without cars

No we bloody didn't! People moved 100 miles from their family homes to the city FOR GOOD and never saw their families or even green countryside again! Yes there were railways but the average worker could only afford one trip a year...

Lovely I don't think.

there were railways but the average worker could only afford one trip a year...

I suspect most families would have struggled with that during the Industrial Revolution.

Paid holidays for employees are a fairly recent innovation (just prior to WW2 IIRC), before that, you got Sunday off to go to church, and the rest of the time you worked until you died or were too ill/weak, at which point you became a drain on your family's resources until you expired.

The reality is that most of the urban poor in the UK are still pretty immobile, both socially and geographically - I regularly take kids of 12-14 on residentials which are their first trip outside Glasgow. Many of them rarely travel outside the housing scheme they live on.

Our current social policy in many areas assumes, and requires, social mobility, as there's a decreasing redundancy in provision - Glasgow Health Board is in the process of centralising A&E provision in fewer hospitals which limits people's access to health provision in reality, even if it's done with the best of intentions in terms of efficiency.

There is some interesting work being done on the potential problems being stored up by the application of 'just in time' planning to areas like health care - basically, our system is [i]increasingly[/i] reliant on population mobility. In essence, it is distinctly possible that we're way more screwed that we realise already.

Like I say we could've built that car at any point within the last 20 years

With that battery life? Well I didn't know halving the cost would be such a huge issue - where are the cost difficulties? But even if we have to pay double current prices many of us will still have cars - and quicker journeys too.

my point is that we had population mobility without cars

Absolutely right. It's complete nonsense to somehow try and make out that if personal car use is reduced, we'll all suddenly be reduced to never leaving whatever hamlet we happen to be stuck in at the time.

I suspect most families would have struggled with that during the Industrial Revolution

Quite possibly, I was thinking of the annual week in Blackpool/Barry Island/Southend on Sea etc.

Mudshark, the issue with batteries is really energy density. You either have a short range, or you have a lot of batteries. That means less space in the car and high cost (because they are expensive). It's no accident that the Tesla is a two seater. They realised that they could satisfy the market requirements of a flash sports car with electricity - a cunning market strategy enabling them to perhaps to get headlines and media profile, and then get more capital to build something more interesting - which I believe they are doing.

Nissan have not produced a car with mass appeal (due to its cost), and they are a huge manufacturer. Even GM have struggled with their Volt because of, you guessed it - battery technology issues. Toyota also were hoping to be able to get enough energy density into the 2009 Prius to give it a 40 mile electric only range, that's not happening now. There is a plug-in version on the way but with a 12 mile range.

It's complete nonsense to suggest that if personal car use is reduced, we'll all suddenly be reduced to never leaving whatever hamlet we happen to be stuck in at the time.

because....?

If you have an financially viable solution that would allow the [i]private[/i] companies who currently provide 'public' transport in the rural areas of the UK to be able to lay on an intensive system of public transport in low density population areas with poor road infrastructures, I'm sure they're be beating down your door to hear it.

because....?

Because there are already many places in the world that are less reliant on the personal car than the UK and people are able to leave their hamlets; and because not long ago the UK was less reliant on the personal car and people were able to leave their hamlets.

It's a false dichotomy that's being suggested: either we carry on as we are or ZOMG we'll be eating turnipz and we'll never see teh sea again!!!11!!

Good lord, I find myself tending to agree with TJ! Current fundamentals of western society are not sustainable. Broadband will solve commuting issues, what is more worring for me is how we sustain an agricultural system that relies totally on oil to be productive enough to meet our demands. Dig for victory springs to mind. No two ways about it, the western definition of high living standards is going to need to change.

Electric cars are a red herring, the batteries are more unsustainable to make that petrol!

That's still not offering a solution tailored to the UK context. I live in the country, although near a large city. I work from home most of the time, but my wife has to travel into work in the city every day, and has to rely on a limited bus service. She can only do this because she works set hours - there's no opportunity for flexible working in that sort of situation. There's zero incentive for the private companies who provide the bus services to provide an improved service, because it's not financially viable for them.

I'm interested to hear more about the places in the world where people commute from the country each day without and significant reliance on cars, in a context where mass transport is provided in low population density areas by private companies who are able to make it economically viable.

Batteries - they've come on a lot in recent times so maybe improve more? Would a bus be viable - better passenger to vehicle/battery weight ratio? If so then we just need a lot more of those serving our more rural communities.

No we bloody didn't! People moved 100 miles

thank you for both denying and proving my point in only 8 word
A ++++

If you have an financially viable solution

Broadband will solve commuting issues

Except you can't get fast broadband out here in the country ( a whole 10 miles outside Glasgow). The private companies who provide these services; BT/Virgin Cable in our case, don't believe it's financially viable to provide the service anytime soon, so we're stuck with sub 1Mb speeds on a good day.

I should make it clear that I'm not denying the existence of the problem by any means, but nobody's yet offered a viable alternative to the spectre of an almost entirely urbanised population.