Comments on: Car vs Public Transport to Save Money

By: Andre Mainez

Andre Mainez — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:24:07 +0000

I’d rather use public transport than my car because it is cheaper.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:06:11 +0000

Russell – here’s a link to some data published by the RACV regarding vehicle running costs (they include capital costs and depreciation, but its all itemized).
For a small car, running costs are around 20c/km (this includes maintenance etc).

http://www.racv.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/Internet/Primary/my+car/advice+%26+information/vehicle+operating+costs/

Its hard to measure well, but convenience is another factor in the choice. For public transport you have the ability to read/work (assuming its not overcrowded) while travelling, but the downside is in poorly serviced areas you may have to schedule around the transport timetable rather then when you actually want to be somewhere.

By: Marcin Trybus

Marcin Trybus — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:56:20 +0000

etbe: Such thing makes no sense if you don’t have an automatic transmission. In Europe we don’t use it quite as much as in Australia/USA, because it’s wasting fuel.

The life cycle of tires depends on (by importance):
* driving style (aggressive is *very* bad)
* correct wheel alignment [1] (incorrect leads to premature wear)
* maintenance of correct pressure (too high or too low is bad)
* weight of a car and it’s load (obvious)

Other than weight the type of car in question does not make a notable difference. Even weight plays a rather insignificant role here.

Inspect your tires.
If one side, the insides or the outsides of usually both tires on the same axle look different then wheel alignment is to blame. Have it fixed, because it also affects handling and fuel consumption.
If both the inside and the outside of a given tire is used prematurely the tire pressure is too low. This also affects handling and fuel consumption.
If the center of a given tire is used more then its sides the tire pressure is too high. This affects handling and greatly increases the risk of aquaplaning [2], but somewhat reduces fuel consumption (albeit at the expense of tires).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_alignment
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaplaning

By: etbe

etbe — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:16:10 +0000

Marcin: Interesting. But surely the car manufacturers could easily solve this. 20 years ago there were after-market devices to keep petrol turbo-charged engines idling for a while after you removed the key, fitting something similar to a turbo-Diesel in the factory should be quite easy.

Stavros: I guess that depends on the make of the car, the type of tire, and the environment as well as the way that the car is driven. For my VW Passat it seems unlikely that I could get more than 25,000km. The other differences between types of car are probably more significant.

Martin: I agree about the saving time issue, but I didn’t mention it because as you say it’s difficult to calculate and varies a lot.

If you own a laptop and there is no serious crime problem in your area then you can do some coding on public transport. In 2001 and 2002 I did a lot of SE Linux coding on Dutch trains.

By: Martin

Martin — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:50:40 +0000

There are some issues, that are very individual and therefore difficult to calculate: E.g. the hours of a freelancer might be expensive, e.g. 100€/hr. What if you can save one hour a day using the car, because the bus detours? Or you can save an hour in the bus, because you don’t need to search a car park? And one extra hour, because you can read and/or sleep in the bus. (Not in Buenos Aires…)

By: Stavros Giannouris

Stavros Giannouris — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:37:54 +0000

Nice analysis. I would like to point however, that the tyres should last for 40000 to 50000 kilometers or three to four years, assuming that the owner treats them well (that is, checking pressures often to prevent running them with lower than the advised pressure — the car also burns more fuel if this is the case)

It is a tiny fraction of the cost so this should not change the conclusion, but I thought I should point it out.