"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
Certainly the high fuel prices in Britain (and to a lesser extent in the
rest of Europe) have been the reason for the smaller proportion of cars
with
automatic transmission (less fuel-efficient) and the higher proportion of
cars with diesel engines (more fuel-efficient) than in the US.

I agree that diesel is more fuel efficient, but, IIRC, it also tends to be
more of a pollutant that regular gasoline. Has there been any improvement in
Europe in combating this problem? As for automatic transmissions, they are
better at being fuel efficient on the highway, if there is a c"cruise
control" feature built in. (Which has become almost standard here in the
U.S.) While this feature is primarily for highway driving, it allows the
vehicle to go at a constant speed for longer periods of time, and in my
experience, has been able to inprove fuel efficency at least at highway
speeds. Automatics are probably less fuel efficent in city driving though,
and of that, I have no doubt.


Approximately 3/4 of the price of a gallon of fuel in the UK is tax -
either
fuel tax or VAT - which makes fuel one of the most heavily-taxed
commodities. To put that in context, the government take the cost of the
fuel (including distribution) and add three times that price in tax - 300%
tax is scary!

There are only 9 states that charge tax on fuel here in hte U.S., NY
included (where I live) and it has made for a comparable situation, even if
the overall price is lower.


I think use of cars versus public transport depends a lot on the
convenience. If I was going to London, where there are frequent services
to
London and within London, and I wasn't taking a lot of luggage, I'd always
use the train. But that's largely due to the greater convenience of the
train/underground in a busy city and the freedom from having to worry
about
where to park.

True, and growing up in NYC as I did, the situation is similar indeed. The
unfortunate thing about living here in Rochester is that the bus routes do
not extend far enough off of the main roads in order to make them more
accessible. If they did that, I htink more people would be inclined to use
them.

The only time I've driven in central London recently is when
I had to get from the north west (Oxford) to the south east (Lewisham) on
business a couple of years ago. I gambled on it being quicker to go
straight
through the middle (M40/A40 - Marylebone Road - City Road - Barbican -
Tower
Bridge - Old Kent Road) than round the M25 or the North Circular. It took
forever, especially around Barbican and Old Kent Road, though I'd be
interested to wonder whether the less direct ring roads would have saved
me
much time. Unfortunately in that case I was delivering a server so I had
to
go by car.

Ring road? Is that the M25? (Same as the North Circular you mentioned?)I
seem to remember driving on that at some point. I hear that is a bitch of a
road to use.


But away from a busy city, public transport takes a lot longer than a car
because it doesn't cover your whole journey, door-to-door, and it doesn't
go
exactly when you want so you have to modify when you travel to fit in with
what's available. And you can't take a carful of luggage etc on the
bus/train. And despite economies of scale, public transport (especially
trains) works out much more expensive than a car. Of course it depends how
you compare the costs, but if you assume that you need a car for some
journeys, then you will already have paid for the road fund licence and
the
insurance up-front - these are fixed costs that don't depend on how much
you
use the car so it's not fair to factor them into the running costs. Thus
you
compare the train fare against the petrol and servicing costs. My car
costs
about 7.5 pence per mile in fuel. Servicing is about £300 per 12,000 miles
which adds another 2.5 pence per mile. If only train fares were as low as
10
pence per mile! Even if insurance and tax are included, that's another
£500
averaged over maybe 15,000 miles or 3 pence per mile.

This is all true, but on the upside, there is the convenience of not having
to sit for endless amounts of time in motorway traffic, toll roads, or
dealing with other knuclhead drivers who don't know how to use the road
properly. Of course, if you can put up with train/bus delays, which can be
almost as annoying, then you might have a better experience than driving,
depending on the circumstances. This year, we launced a high speed ferry
service across Lake Ontario to Toronto. While some people have been
wondering about whether the cost is worth the trip., ($33-#37, one way,
though there are special deals, and also depending on whether you choose to
take your car on board), many who have taken this ferry have remarked how
much more convenient it is as opposed to sitting in traffic at the border
crossing, and then dealing with traffic in Toronto, and then finding
parking, etc. Toronto has a very good public transit system, so it makes
more sense to leave the car at home. There are many Canadian business people
who use the ferry regularly now, as they find it far more cost efficient.

I think in the end it all depends, as you have pointed out, what is your
destination, and what would make the most sense.


I run a business which involves me taking my PC repair tools and laptop to
customers all around my region and may involve me taking/collecting PCs.
No
way would that be feasible on a train/bus or on my bike. However if a
customer lives within walking distance of me and it's a nice day, I may
well
walk.

Makes sense. It is the equivalent of a buisiness that uses trucks to make
deliveries, or transport equipment or services. You essentially work out of
your car.

So you choose your transport according to your needs and according to
what's
available. Price is less of a factor in deciding how to travel - it just
bumps up the price and becomes a grudge purchase.

Now, can you deduct any of these expenses from your taxes if they are being
used for a legitimate business expense?