Whilst there is undoubtedly an element of idealism involved in this trial, it is also about cold hard cash. We believe that it will prove to be better value.
Significantly, when you buy a car, you must generally select for the highest common denominator.
So, for example, if you have 2 children and like to go off camping, you require a large vehicle (possibly an SUV), despite the fact that for probably 95% of your trips a small, 1.1 litre vehicle is sufficient.
In reality—and this is directly relevant in our situation—you tend to compromise.
4 years ago, when we first moved to Australia, we bought a 2.6 litre V6 Magna. This proved both too big for most of our needs and in the end too small and too two-wheel-drived for the more fun things in our lives.
Thus we had significant money tied up unproductively.
Multiply this over an entire city, and there must be huge amount of wealth allocated inefficiently.
So for us, if a vehicle is required, the option of taxi or car hire will allow us to select a vehicle appropriate for our journey.
Thus, we can choose to spend $130 per day on a 4WD when needed, otherwise it's just $35 for a Nissan Colt or a few bucks for a taxi journey.
Furthermore, the fixed costs of owning a vehicle are often comparable to that of running a vehicle. In our situation, petrol represents only around 1/3 of the annual cost of the vehicle. The marginal cost of fuelling it up and using it are low, so encouraging you to use it, once you've got it.
So the answer does not lie in simply not using the vehicle, but in not even owning one.
This is the service economy, beloved of environmental thinkers like Amory Lovins.
Instead of owning fixed assets, households and firms will lease them. So you won't own your television, but rent it. We won’t own a car, we will simply access one when needed. The advantages are manifold:
- you have access to the latest technology that will improve both the quality and efficiency of the product available to you
- you are not directly responsible for the maintenance of the product
- you are not responsible for the disposal of the goods
And in the broader economy:
- the supplier of the goods is in the best position to judge when it is most efficient to take goods out of circulation and replace with new
- the supplier is often in the best position to take back [and recycle] goods that are no longer required in circulation
4 comments:
Only 25% of the costs of public transport are paid by fares. You pay the other 75% through taxes. So to get the real cost, multily your fare by four. My weekly three zone fare is $25.60. I actually pay $102.40 a week.
Obviously the real cost and economy of using PT is being hidden from us by government subsidy from our taxes.
Is PT more efficient than cars? Travel on a train in the middle of the day or in the evenning. Each carriage seats 80, but there will not even be 20 people in each carriage. A car has at least one person (the driver) in it - one fifth of it's capacity. Often there are two or three. The same applies to buses.
Even in peak times the buses and trains are only full if inbound (mornings) or outbound (afternoons) and onlyfor the par tof the trip near the City. I have often seen empty buses in the City during peak times.
A bus or a train is only more efficient in terms of capacity if it si fULL. Usually,they are less full than a car has to be.
You are thinking only about expense in terms of money. The saying that time is money is true. Having a car saves you a lot of time.
You are talking about the cost of a car as if it gave nothing back.
We buy a lot of things we don't need but merely like. That is, things which are not essential for life. The argument that a car is a non-essential expense is ultimately an argument for subsistence living - merely supporting life.
pply that to your food. There are a lot of food items you buy which are not essential to keep you alive - you just enjoy them.
a car is a convenience which saves youtime in which you can do more other things. Not just watching more TV or spending mroe time at the pub, but productive or properly recreational activity.
Renting and leasing is good for some things. You lease a TV, refrigerator or wahsing machine for a fixed term - say 6 months. That is not the same as hiring a car for a day but not having it on others, or phoning and waiting for a taxi.
A hire company puts things in and out of circulation as needed, but they need to have a large stock in reserve to meet unpredictable demands. A single owner puts their car in and out of circulation as needed too - whennot in use, it is stored in the garage. What's the difference?
Consider also that people use things they own with more care than if they are hiring it. If they own it, they want it to last, so they don't have to pay to replace it soon. So a hire company would be "recycling" or disposing of their vehicles more frequently than a single owner would.
The hire company pays similar purchase, maintenance depreciation etc costs to those the single owner pays - and passes them to the hirer. They also pay overheads for their company.
We currently have corporations, and cartels of corporations, dominating our industries, and are headed toward total monopoly. A total "service" economy could result in people becoming dependent on one or a few corporations for their needs, as we effectively do with our electricity and telephone services.
Post a Comment