| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
Just saw a news piece last night here in the states on the impact of rising
gas prices over in London. While they touched on many things, the two things that stuck out for me were the increase in fuel efficient car usage, and the increase in public transport use. Are you folks who use the system daily there noticing any true increase in passengers, and has the congestion charge had any real effect on public transport use as well? -- David Spiro Liver Transplant Recipient - 8/1/97 RECYCLE YOURSELF! - BE AN ORGAN DONOR "We spend all our time searching for security, and then we hate it when we get it." --John Steinbeck |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
"David Spiro" wrote in message
... Just saw a news piece last night here in the states on the impact of rising gas prices over in London. While they touched on many things, the two things that stuck out for me were the increase in fuel efficient car usage, and the increase in public transport use. Are you folks who use the system daily there noticing any true increase in passengers, and has the congestion charge had any real effect on public transport use as well? 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. 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! 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message , at 16:09:36 on Sun, 28 Aug
2005, David Spiro remarked: Just saw a news piece last night here in the states on the impact of rising gas prices over in London. While they touched on many things, the two things that stuck out for me were the increase in fuel efficient car usage, Fuel efficiency is an important characteristic when choosing a car, but this isn't a new thing. Cars are, on average, much smaller and more efficient than those in the USA. Thinking of some common models, the Mercedes "E" series is regarded here as a very big car, and a BMW X5 or Range Rover is about the largest vehicle anyone would ever buy. Despite the current high price of gas, it has not risen as fast as inflation. and the increase in public transport use. Are you folks who use the system daily there noticing any true increase in passengers, and has the congestion charge had any real effect on public transport use as well? Within the congestion zone itself, perhaps; but not outside it. -- Roland Perry |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
"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? |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:07:59 -0400, "David Spiro"
wrote: 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. Cruise control is provided on most executive level manual-transmission cars in the UK. If you think about it, it's not necessary to change gear to maintain a constant speed on the motorway, certainly not in the types of car that tend to have it, which tend to be those with larger engines. It is fitted to more and more cars these days because it's something that can be provided using a few lines of code in the ECU and no additional physical hardware bar an on/off switch. It has nothing at all to do with the transmission. Automatics are probably less fuel efficent in city driving though, and of that, I have no doubt. Automatic transmissions in general are less fuel-efficient because there are losses from the torque converter. If a converter lock-up feature is provided, as it is with many such transmissions, the losses can be reduced at motorway speeds, but when not engaged the losses remain. The loss is fairly obvious in how gutless small-engined automatic cars seem to be compared with the equivalent manual. There are, of course, other types of automatic transmission that use hydraulics to operate a conventional clutch and gearbox. These are rather more efficient, but most people find that the driving experience is uncomfortable, especially because you can lose power for a couple of seconds at the "wrong" time while the gearbox shifts, which can be downright dangerous at worst. CVTs are very efficient indeed, but also don't last long enough so are uneconomic. 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 trouble with that is that running through estates makes bus routes slower. I think in the end it all depends, as you have pointed out, what is your destination, and what would make the most sense. Indeed. I use all modes of transport as appropriate to the specific journey, be that walking, bicycle, bus, train, car, ferry or plane. The number of people who give me funny looks when they find that I use the first three (and to a lesser extent #4) when I own a car is significant and alarming at the same time. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message , David Spiro
writes 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, In my experience, having driven a Renault with this feature for 10 years, the cruise control can rarely be used on British motorways for more than a minute or two at a time, since the traffic is far too heavy (and I think the speeds tend to be rather faster than in the USA). 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. That certainly applies to more outlying parts of London. I live about 8 miles from the city centre, and here we have buses every few minutes (and even every 15 minutes right through the night). This is largely as a result of the regulated bus service in London - it means that I very rarely drive into the middle of London (especially as there is a congestion charge for doing so during the working day, and parking charges are prohibitively high). Added to that is the fact that soon I will soon be 60 and old enough to qualify for free travel on public transport in London! (snip) Now, can you deduct any of these expenses from your taxes if they are being used for a legitimate business expense? There are now very strict limits on the way motoring expenses can be set against tax - they include significantly better deals for the most fuel-efficient and least polluting vehicles, and the benefit of a company car is itself taxed. -- Paul Terry |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
"Neil Williams" wrote in message
... On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:07:59 -0400, "David Spiro" wrote: 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. Cruise control is provided on most executive level manual-transmission cars in the UK. If you think about it, it's not necessary to change gear to maintain a constant speed on the motorway, certainly not in the types of car that tend to have it, which tend to be those with larger engines. It is fitted to more and more cars these days because it's something that can be provided using a few lines of code in the ECU and no additional physical hardware bar an on/off switch. It has nothing at all to do with the transmission. Cruise control is only really useful in very light traffic. As an experiment I tried driving at a constant 60 and then 70 on a motorway / dual-carriageway journey today. At 60, you have to remain in the left lane, otherwise you get in the way of traffic wanting to go faster. But in the left lane you fall foul of HGVs and Sunday drivers trundling along at 40 or 50, so you have to either reduce to their speed or else accelerate to a suitable speed to overtake them. At 70, you can use the middle lane without getting V signs from people who want to get past you but you still have to keep coming off the power to re-create a safe distance from the car in front as cars overtake and then cut in far too close in front of you. Late at night, I'm sure a cruise control can be quite useful; likewise I'm sure it's invaluable in making sure you don't exceed 30 and 40 limits, especially where these feel exceptionally slow and there is a constant tendency to speed up to a speed that feels right for the road conditions. Automatics are probably less fuel efficent in city driving though, and of that, I have no doubt. Automatic transmissions in general are less fuel-efficient because there are losses from the torque converter. If a converter lock-up feature is provided, as it is with many such transmissions, the losses can be reduced at motorway speeds, but when not engaged the losses remain. The loss is fairly obvious in how gutless small-engined automatic cars seem to be compared with the equivalent manual. Part of this is due to the algorithm that is used to determine when the gearbox changes down. My experience is that automatics are far too ready to change to a low gear in situations where I would hold onto the higher gear but floor the accelerator - for example, when accelerating out of a roundabout, many automatics approach in top, stay in top while going round and then (or this is how it feels) drop into first as soon as you apply power on the far side: you either have sluggish acceleration with no power or else they flip into giving kick-in-the-back acceleration if you apply just slightly more power - there's no happy medium. I had an unfortunate experience in a hire car (for a business trip): this automatic Ford Focus, probably a 1.6, had a pathological aversion to accelerating and would change down as you applied more and more power, so you always ended up going at 50, but with a choice of gears and engine speeds! Not very easy when you're trying to overtake cars on the motorway. When I reached my destination, I reported it to the hire company and asked for a replacement car for the return journey. There are, of course, other types of automatic transmission that use hydraulics to operate a conventional clutch and gearbox. These are rather more efficient, but most people find that the driving experience is uncomfortable, especially because you can lose power for a couple of seconds at the "wrong" time while the gearbox shifts, which can be downright dangerous at worst. CVTs are very efficient indeed, but also don't last long enough so are uneconomic. I've heard that the automatically-controlled manual gearboxes fitted in some Citroen C3s and VW Golfs are the bext of both worlds: the efficiency of a manual geabox because there's no wastage in the fluid flywheel and the convenience of a geabox that can either be totally automatic or else sequential-manual according to preference. A colleague was very impressed with his C3 and demonstrated that he could change up and down at will, when accelerating, decelerating or at constant speed, with virtually no jerkiness or loss of power. |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
"Paul Terry" wrote in message
... In message , David Spiro writes 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, In my experience, having driven a Renault with this feature for 10 years, the cruise control can rarely be used on British motorways for more than a minute or two at a time, since the traffic is far too heavy (and I think the speeds tend to be rather faster than in the USA). Faster depends on where you are. Speed limits here in NY state are 65 mph on most interstates outside of built up areas, but going to say Florida, speed limits are 75 mph, with cars usually goign 10-15 mph faster in both states. I think Montana at one point completely eliminated speed limits on its interstates (a la autobahn) but I think they may have changed that policy some tiem ago. Now, can you deduct any of these expenses from your taxes if they are being used for a legitimate business expense? There are now very strict limits on the way motoring expenses can be set against tax - they include significantly better deals for the most fuel-efficient and least polluting vehicles, and the benefit of a company car is itself taxed. Hmm.....I guess that means you can get away with a lot more here in terms of deductions for business expenses. Cars are taxed when you re-register the vehicle every two years, and of course when you get it inspected every year. |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
"David Spiro" wrote in message
... "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? A lot of modern diesel cars have "particulate filters" which trap the PM10 carbon particles and then burn them to produce CO2 which may fuel the greenhouse effect but at least don't cause asthma. Unfortunately my car is a couple of years too old to have a particulate filter. However I think the design of modern diesel engines, especially those with very high-pressure direct injection, burns the fuel more completely, leading to greater power / lower fuel usage and also less PM10 emission. The one thing we've not seen much in the UK is bio diesel - produced from biological sources such as rape seed - or recycled diesel which processes waste cooking oil to produce diesel. For some reason, the rises in the price of fuel over the past few months have affected diesel prices more than petrol: going back a few years, diesel used to be slightly cheaper than petrol, then it drew level and became 1-2 pence/litre more expensive, but stilll cheaper than leaded or lead-replacement petrol; now it's consistently the most expensive fuel on the forecourt, typically 5 pence/litre more than unleaded. Since the fuel duty (a fixed rate that's not dependent on the raw material cost) hasn't changed, I'm not sure what's happened. Still, as long as my trusty Peugeot continues to do 50 miles/gallon (that's about 40 miles per US gallon), I'm happy. At the time of the fuel strikes in 2000, I was commuting about 90 miles a day until I moved closer to where I work and a colleague was doing a similar distance. The difference was, my car did 50 mpg and had a range of about 650 miles between fillings, whereas he had an imported Buick or Cadillac which did about 15 mpg. Many people (such as him) were having to take days of work because they were about to run out of fuel and even the trains and buses were cutting their services to conserve fuel, whereas I managed (just) to find sufficent garages that were open so I could keep going. The fuel strikes actually raised an interesting legal issue: diesel for off-road use (eg heating oil, generators, farm vehicles etc) is taxed at a much lower rate. It is dyed red to distinguish it from DERV (diesel engined road vehicle) diesel, and it is a serious offence to use red diesel in cars and lorries. At the time of the strikes, these rules were relaxed because fuel was in such short supply and you were allowed to use red diesel if you could find it. The red dye stains the parts of the engine - even if the police don't find red fuel in the tank, they can still (in extreme cases) take the engine apart to look for tell-tale staining. But once you allow cars to use red diesel legally for a while, you can't rely on that ever again to prove whether a car has been illegally using red diesel - anyone caught (as long as they don't actually have the fuel in the tank) can say "oh, that's from when I was allowed to use it during the fuel strike". 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. 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. There are two ring roads around London. The M25 motorway is roughly 15-20 miles away from the centre of London. It's at least 3-lane and in the busiest section to the south-west of London it's 4-lane. However it's become a victim of its own success: so much traffic uses it that in busy periods it becomes clogged with traffic so you need to drive slower - in fact many sections have variable speed limits which come into force to slow traffic down when it gets busy. Since these are stringently enforced, you get the absurd situation of 4 lanes of traffic all doing 50.0 mph with one lane not moving relative to another, which makes it virtually impossible to move to Lane 1 when you want to leave the motorway; many times I've stayed in Lane 1 if I'm only going a few junctions because before now I've got trapped in a further-right lane with no-one letting me in (even though I indicate a mile before the junction) to start moving left to exit. Also, at busy periods, people think the laws of physics don't apply and don't leave enough stopping distance between them and the car in front: if you leave a sensible space, someone nips in and you have to brake to re-create a gap which someone then takes - and so on ad infinitum. Then there's the North- and South-Circular roads (A406 and A205 respectively) which are about 5-10 miles from the centre and consist of what used to be ordinary single-carriageway roads which have been widened in places where there's space but in other places remain one lane in each direction (the notorious Hanger Lane section between the M4 and the M40 springs to mind) so that too gets very congested and leads to bumper-to-bumper stop-start traffic jams. It also has frequent traffic light junctions which further slow the traffic down. When I was going to London I went straight through the middle; when I was coming back I went via the North Circular which was a good 20 miles further and didn't seem to take any less time because of avoiding the city centre. My experience with driving in London is that in the centre it's very busy but traffic keeps moving - sometimes you can reach 30, a lot of the time your at about 20, but as long as you look a long way ahead and don't get stuck behind a row of parked cars in the left lane, waiting till some kind person lets you pull out, then you keep moving. The worse congestion is in the suburbs a few miles out of the centre (Shepherd's Bush, Willesden, Streatham etc) where even in quiet times you usually end up stationary for fairly long periods of time. I've not driven in London since the Congestion Charge was introduced, so I don't know whether it's led to an increase of traffic on the roads just outside the zone which are diverting to avoid paying the charge. |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk... In message , at 16:09:36 on Sun, 28 Aug 2005, David Spiro remarked: Just saw a news piece last night here in the states on the impact of rising gas prices over in London. While they touched on many things, the two things that stuck out for me were the increase in fuel efficient car usage, Fuel efficiency is an important characteristic when choosing a car, but this isn't a new thing. Cars are, on average, much smaller and more efficient than those in the USA. Thinking of some common models, the Mercedes "E" series is regarded here as a very big car, and a BMW X5 or Range Rover is about the largest vehicle anyone would ever buy. Despite the current high price of gas, it has not risen as fast as inflation. I'm surprised that it's risen at less than the rate of inflation. Since I started keeping records of my fuel consumption and fuel charges, the price has risen from about 45 pence to 95 pence between 1993 and 2005. So that's just over a 100% increase in 12 years or an average of about 9% per year. I wonder what the average rate of inflation has been over that period? I know it used to be a lot higher than the 2-3% it is now, but I bet the average isn't as high as 9%. |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
Martin Underwood (a@b) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying : Despite the current high price of gas, it has not risen as fast as inflation. I'm surprised that it's risen at less than the rate of inflation. Since I started keeping records of my fuel consumption and fuel charges, the price has risen from about 45 pence to 95 pence between 1993 and 2005. So that's just over a 100% increase in 12 years or an average of about 9% per year. I wonder what the average rate of inflation has been over that period? RPI was 137.9 at Jan 1993 and 192.2 at Jul 2005. According to that, fuel prices have risen *much* faster than inflation. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS...9&More=N&All=Y |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message , David Spiro
writes "Paul Terry" wrote in message ... In my experience, having driven a Renault with this feature for 10 years, the cruise control can rarely be used on British motorways for more than a minute or two at a time, since the traffic is far too heavy (and I think the speeds tend to be rather faster than in the USA). Faster depends on where you are. Speed limits here in NY state are 65 mph on most interstates outside of built up areas, but going to say Florida, speed limits are 75 mph, with cars usually goign 10-15 mph faster in both states. Nevertheless, inter-city motorways in the UK are mostly very much more crowded than inter-state highways in the USA. In most parts of the UK it is rare not to be surrounded by 20 or more vehicles going fast in the same direction and at close proximity. Some will be going slower, some will be overtaking (often exceeding the speed limit and then cutting in suddenly, given the proliferation of speed cameras on motorways). The notion of the "open highway", which I believe is still relevant in many parts of the USA, is virtually unknown in most parts of the UK today. Hmm.....I guess that means you can get away with a lot more here in terms of deductions for business expenses. Cars are taxed when you re-register the vehicle every two years, and of course when you get it inspected every year. In the UK taxes are imposed when you buy the vehicle, when you re-register it every year, when you pay for insurance, when you pay to get it inspected (annually after three years), whenever you pay for repairs and (at a colossal rate) whenever you fill it with gas. In addition, the Inland Revenue will seek to claw back money for such perceived benefits as having access to a company car. On top of that, parking charges and restrictions in many towns and cities are set at a rate that makes many of us cautious about using the car if alternatives are available. For somebody like me, who can afford a small car despite not really needing it, all of this makes me look to public transport as the better alternative - even if the reality is that the car occasionally provides the better alternative. I suspect that this is very different to the situation in most of the USA, as well as for a significant number of UK residents. -- Paul Terry |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:50:42 +0100, Paul Terry
wrote: often exceeding the speed limit and then cutting in suddenly, given the proliferation of speed cameras on motorways What speed cameras? On motorways outside temporary speed limits, other than on that notorious part of the M4, I have never encountered any, and was of the understanding that this was a deliberate thing. (If you're thinking of the lines on the northern part of the M6, there are no cameras there; the lines are left over from some roadworks). Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message , Neil Williams
writes On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:50:42 +0100, Paul Terry wrote: often exceeding the speed limit and then cutting in suddenly, given the proliferation of speed cameras on motorways What speed cameras? I should have said trunk roads. -- Paul Terry |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
Adrian wrote: RPI was 137.9 at Jan 1993 and 192.2 at Jul 2005. According to that, fuel prices have risen *much* faster than inflation. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS...9&More=N&All=Y However, if you take a longer term view, petrol has risen roughly in line with inflation since 1970 and has almost halved in relation to average earnings. According to: http://www.barrydoe.co.uk/2004.pdf Petrol has risen 11 fold between 1970 and 2004 and RPI has risen 10 fold. By contrast, average earnings have risen 19 fold. |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message , at 21:50:42 on Mon, 29 Aug
2005, Paul Terry remarked: In the UK taxes are imposed when you buy the vehicle, Sales tax plus a special car tax. when you re-register it every year, $300 car tax. when you pay for insurance, Sales tax on the premium. when you pay to get it inspected (annually after three years), Huh? Do you mean the sales tax on the inspection fee? whenever you pay for repairs Sales tax and (at a colossal rate) whenever you fill it with gas. Special fuel tax plus sales tax. And in the USA (where I used to live anyway) you pay sales tax on secondhand cars bought from a dealer. That's one tax we escape in the UK. You can also end up paying sales tax on the car you already own if you "import" it from one state to another! -- Roland Perry |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message , at
20:57:45 on Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Martin Underwood remarked: For some reason, the rises in the price of fuel over the past few months have affected diesel prices more than petrol: going back a few years, diesel used to be slightly cheaper than petrol, then it drew level and became 1-2 pence/litre more expensive, but stilll cheaper than leaded or lead-replacement petrol; now it's consistently the most expensive fuel on the forecourt, typically 5 pence/litre more than unleaded. Since the fuel duty (a fixed rate that's not dependent on the raw material cost) hasn't changed, I'm not sure what's happened. When oil is refined, it's expensive to change the types of fuel that are produced (away from some "natural" mix of petrol/diesel etc). I expect that the demand for diesel has increased enormously, so the price rise reflects a relative scarcity. -- Roland Perry |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:50:42 on Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Paul Terry remarked: In the UK taxes are imposed when you buy the vehicle, Sales tax plus a special car tax. That was done away with donkey's years ago - IIRC when Thatcher was still in power. Now the only tax we pay on new vehicles is Value Added Tax at 17.5%. |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message .com, at
01:01:33 on Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Richard Adamfi remarked: However, if you take a longer term view, petrol has risen roughly in line with inflation since 1970 and has almost halved in relation to average earnings. To be honest, it was probably the average earnings figure that I was remembering. So petrol is twice as affordable as it once was, which is the important thing. -- Roland Perry |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:57:45 on Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Martin Underwood remarked: For some reason, the rises in the price of fuel over the past few months have affected diesel prices more than petrol: going back a few years, diesel used to be slightly cheaper than petrol, then it drew level and became 1-2 pence/litre more expensive, but stilll cheaper than leaded or lead-replacement petrol; now it's consistently the most expensive fuel on the forecourt, typically 5 pence/litre more than unleaded. Since the fuel duty (a fixed rate that's not dependent on the raw material cost) hasn't changed, I'm not sure what's happened. When oil is refined, it's expensive to change the types of fuel that are produced (away from some "natural" mix of petrol/diesel etc). I expect that the demand for diesel has increased enormously, so the price rise reflects a relative scarcity. I seem to recall mention of a shift in Treasury policy on fuel taxation so that they get the same amount of cash per mile from the motorist regardless of fuel used. Diesel using less fuel per mile gets taxed more. No I don't have a link to confirm that. |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message , Neil Williams
writes (If you're thinking of the lines on the northern part of the M6, there are no cameras there; the lines are left over from some roadworks). I thought they had recently installed two cameras each way on the Lancashire section? -- Clive |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:23:12 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: when you pay to get it inspected (annually after three years), Huh? Do you mean the sales tax on the inspection fee? The MOT inspection is mandatory, so arguably the inspection fee is a tax. -- James Farrar September's coming soon |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message , at
09:15:15 on Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Brimstone remarked: I seem to recall mention of a shift in Treasury policy on fuel taxation so that they get the same amount of cash per mile from the motorist regardless of fuel used. Diesel using less fuel per mile gets taxed more. That's an interesting idea, but the price hike would be much more. "Ultra-low sulphur petrol and diesel are liable for duty of 47.10p per litre, while the rate for non-ULS unleaded petrol is 50.19p and 53.27p for non-ULS diesel [...] Road fuels are also liable for Value Added Tax at a rate of 17.5 per cent of the full retail price (including duty)" http://www.politics.co.uk/issues/road-fuel-duties-$3320486.htm Also: "In August 2004, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee claimed that petrol was 10 per cent cheaper in real terms than in 2000." "[Total duties of] £24.4 billion in 2004-2005" (That's about £1000 per household). -- Roland Perry |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message , at 10:55:42 on
Tue, 30 Aug 2005, James Farrar remarked: when you pay to get it inspected (annually after three years), Huh? Do you mean the sales tax on the inspection fee? The MOT inspection is mandatory, so arguably the inspection fee is a tax. A very weak argument, though. You have to buy new tyres when they wear out, too. Is that a tax? -- Roland Perry |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : when you pay to get it inspected (annually after three years), Huh? Do you mean the sales tax on the inspection fee? The MOT inspection is mandatory, so arguably the inspection fee is a tax. A very weak argument, though. You have to buy new tyres when they wear out, too. Is that a tax? I suspect he was meaning VAT on the MOT fee. Not that the MOT is VATted. |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message . 170, at
11:33:52 on Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Adrian remarked: Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : when you pay to get it inspected (annually after three years), Huh? Do you mean the sales tax on the inspection fee? The MOT inspection is mandatory, so arguably the inspection fee is a tax. A very weak argument, though. You have to buy new tyres when they wear out, too. Is that a tax? I suspect he was meaning VAT on the MOT fee. Not that the MOT is VATted. My thoughts exactly. The OP was clutching at straws. -- Roland Perry |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message . 170,
Adrian writes I suspect he was meaning VAT on the MOT fee. Not that the MOT is VATted. This is something I've never given thought to but am now wondering, does the MOT attract VAT? -- Clive |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message , at 13:10:23 on Tue,
30 Aug 2005, Clive remarked: This is something I've never given thought to but am now wondering, does the MOT attract VAT? No. http://www.direct.gov.uk/Motoring/Ow...rticles/fs/en? CONTENT_ID=4022514&chk=3fdPzr -- Roland Perry |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message , Roland
Perry writes My thoughts exactly. The OP was clutching at straws. Eh? I have no idea whether the cost of car ownership is higher here than the USA or not - I have no axe to grind either way! I was merely pointing out, in the context of setting motoring expenses against tax, that we have the MOT here, just as the American poster said he has an annual auto inspection (the latter is generally only a fraction of the cost of an MOT, incidentally). -- Paul Terry |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message , at 15:26:22 on Tue, 30 Aug
2005, Paul Terry remarked: My thoughts exactly. The OP was clutching at straws. Eh? I have no idea whether the cost of car ownership is higher here than the USA or not - I have no axe to grind either way! I was merely pointing out, in the context of setting motoring expenses against tax, that we have the MOT here, just as the American poster said he has an annual auto inspection (the latter is generally only a fraction of the cost of an MOT, incidentally). Is the MOT a "tax", though? We have established that it doesn't incur sales tax (aka VAT). -- Roland Perry |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : I was merely pointing out, in the context of setting motoring expenses against tax, that we have the MOT here, just as the American poster said he has an annual auto inspection (the latter is generally only a fraction of the cost of an MOT, incidentally). Is the MOT a "tax", though? We have established that it doesn't incur sales tax (aka VAT). I really don't see how it can be, since it's not paid (even indirectly) to the Exchequer. It's a fee, set with reference to a maximum chargable, by the garage who perform the test and payable to the garage. I doubt much (if any) of it is paid on to VOSA by the garage. |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message , Roland
Perry writes In message , at 15:26:22 on Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Paul Terry remarked: My thoughts exactly. The OP was clutching at straws. Eh? I have no idea whether the cost of car ownership is higher here than the USA or not - I have no axe to grind either way! I was merely pointing out, in the context of setting motoring expenses against tax, that we have the MOT here, just as the American poster said he has an annual auto inspection (the latter is generally only a fraction of the cost of an MOT, incidentally). Is the MOT a "tax", though? I wouldn't have said so. It is, however an expense that can be set against tax under certain circumstances (returning to the context of the original point, once again). -- Paul Terry |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message , at 17:00:20 on Tue, 30 Aug
2005, Paul Terry remarked: Is the MOT a "tax", though? I wouldn't have said so. It is, however an expense that can be set against tax under certain circumstances (returning to the context of the original point, once again). The *original* point was the cost of motoring vs public transport. -- Roland Perry |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:32:39 +0100, Clive
wrote: I thought they had recently installed two cameras each way on the Lancashire section? Must be very recent if they have. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message , Roland
Perry writes In message , at 17:00:20 on Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Paul Terry remarked: Is the MOT a "tax", though? I wouldn't have said so. It is, however an expense that can be set against tax under certain circumstances (returning to the context of the original point, once again). The *original* point was the cost of motoring vs public transport. So neither the American who mentioned US vehicle inspections, or I who mentioned MOTs, were right to think that these are related to the cost of motoring? Forgive me if I choose no longer to participate in this mind-numbing pedantry, which appears to have lost the whole thrust of the point and which has totally ignored what I wrote about the reasons for increased use of public transport in London. :( -- Paul Terry |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
"Martin Underwood" a@b wrote in
: There are two ring roads around London. Three. Besides the M25 and North/South Circulars, there's the inner ring road, which is currently (almost) co-incident with the outer perimiter of the congestion charge zone. Much like the North Circ used to be (and the South Circ still is), it's a collection of roads that happen to form a circumference around "central" London, rather than being a purpose-built ring-road. Iain |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
In message , at 19:37:09 on Tue, 30 Aug
2005, Paul Terry remarked: The *original* point was the cost of motoring vs public transport. So neither the American who mentioned US vehicle inspections, or I who mentioned MOTs, were right to think that these are related to the cost of motoring? They relate to the cost of motoring, but it was wrong for you to include it in a list of "taxes imposed in the UK". -- Roland Perry |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
"Paul Terry" wrote in message
... So neither the American who mentioned US vehicle inspections, or I who mentioned MOTs, were right to think that these are related to the cost of motoring? Forgive me if I choose no longer to participate in this mind-numbing pedantry, which appears to have lost the whole thrust of the point and which has totally ignored what I wrote about the reasons for increased use of public transport in London. :( Jeez, guys, take a deep breath, please. I'm almost sorry I posted this thread.........................I didn't meant to start a war.......... |
Gas (petrol) prices, and public transport.
"Iain" wrote in message
... "Martin Underwood" a@b wrote in : There are two ring roads around London. Three. Besides the M25 and North/South Circulars, there's the inner ring road, which is currently (almost) co-incident with the outer perimiter of the congestion charge zone. Much like the North Circ used to be (and the South Circ still is), it's a collection of roads that happen to form a circumference around "central" London, rather than being a purpose-built ring-road. True. I don't tend to think of Marylebone Road / Euston Road / City Road as being a ring road, but looking at a map it is. I suppose you could continut it into south London as Borough Road, Westminster Bridge, Victoria Road, Park Lane and Edgware Road to get back to the starting point. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:52 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk