Price of petrol set to surge
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: The old horey "lane splitting"
Next: Anti-smoking ads
From: D Walford on 7 Jan 2010 03:37 G-S wrote: > CrazyCam wrote: >> >> Scooters, pushies and walking, yup, I'll believe, but you have to be >> joking about car-pooling and public transport. >> > > Public transport in and around Melbourne and across the state of > victoria is showing consistent growth of between 4% and 8% depending > upon location and mode. > > With those sorts of growth rates sustained (and they have been for some > years now) it isn't long before we'll start to see noticable pattern > shifts. Not likely when you factor in population increases which has as much to do with the increased PT use as anything else. For PT transport to have much effect on car use in Melbourne the State Govt needs to spend mega bucks improving rail infrastructure. I've lived in Melb's outer West for 30yrs and in that time there hasn't been any infrastructure improvements. Daryl
From: Fran on 7 Jan 2010 04:29 On Jan 7, 7:30 pm, D Walford <dwalf...(a)internode.on.net> wrote: > Fran wrote: > > On Jan 7, 9:49 am, theo <theodo...(a)bigpond.com.au> wrote: > >> On Jan 6, 9:44 am, Fran <fran.b...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> What do you suppose would happen to vehicle miles (and the composition > >>> of the vehicle fleet) in Australia if the price of petrol went up and > >>> stayed up by, say, 50 cents per litre? > >> It's already done that in the last few years. And nothing much > >> happened to the composition of the fleet, except that 'performance' > >> cars got bigger and more powerful engines using more fuel. > > >> Regardless of the pain of opening your wallet at the Servo, fuel is > >> the cheapest component of owning a motor vehicle. A vehicle costing > >> $30K new being driven 12,000 kms per annum (the stated average for > >> private vehicles) at 10 l/100km paying $1.20 per litre will cost $1440 > >> in fuel. It will cost $500 in Rego fees, $500-800 in Insurance, will > >> require one service at $250, depreciate by at least 25%, $7500, and > >> will cost at least $2400 in Finance costs (I have taken this to be 8% > >> of the $30K you no longer have in Fixed Term Deposit, actual borrowing > >> will cost more). I won't bother with tyres ($200) and other minor > >> incidentals, such as RAC membership. > > >> Your total costs are $12,590. An additional $0.50 per litre will add a > >> whopping $600 to your costs. 4.8%. Whoopee! > > > As noted above, I substantially agree that *in the short run* (which > > is to say within the cycle in which people trade their cars) 50 cents > > per litre isn't going to make a lot of difference. (I'd be surprised > > about the 12,000 annual km figure though -- maybe there are some > > wealthy inner city dwellers who don't use their cars much, but I'd be > > surprised if more than 50% of urban commuters who use their cars o > > commute don't approach 20,000km each year). Work it out -- if you live > > just 25km from work and go to work and home 276 times per year, > > there's 13,800km already. Throw in recreational vehicle use, shopping > > etc on weekends @ 40 km per weekend, and there's easily another 2100. > > Annual trip to the snow and the north coast for Christmas? Add 2000 km > > each. Commuters to Sydney drive from the Central Coast, Wollongong, > > Picton and the Blue Mountains. Even Penrith is 50ks out. > > 16,000klms is the figure that is used as the national average for klms > travelled per year. It sounds light to me -- a bit like the difference between the average wage and the wage that most people don't get. Fran
From: Fran on 7 Jan 2010 04:36 On Jan 7, 7:37 pm, D Walford <dwalf...(a)internode.on.net> wrote: > G-S wrote: > > CrazyCam wrote: > > >> Scooters, pushies and walking, yup, I'll believe, but you have to be > >> joking about car-pooling and public transport. > > > Public transport in and around Melbourne and across the state of > > victoria is showing consistent growth of between 4% and 8% depending > > upon location and mode. > > > With those sorts of growth rates sustained (and they have been for some > > years now) it isn't long before we'll start to see noticable pattern > > shifts. > > Not likely when you factor in population increases which has as much to > do with the increased PT use as anything else. > For PT transport to have much effect on car use in Melbourne the State > Govt needs to spend mega bucks improving rail infrastructure. > I've lived in Melb's outer West for 30yrs and in that time there hasn't > been any infrastructure improvements. One thing a serious cost on fuel could do is generate funds specifically to provide the seed capital for new investment, not just in PT but in high density housing near (within about 25 kms) of the city. Another possible idea would be to attack the psychology of vehicle usage. Suppose each vehicle had to have a gauge that game you real- time feedback on the fuel-efficiency of your current driving? When you were at or near optimum, it gives you a five star rating -- at the end of each day and the week it rates you for the week. It could also give you projections based on your current driving style on how many km you had left in the tank. A pretty simple measure but I'll bet we'd get a more sensible use of cars and it might help author some longterm culture change. Fran
From: Nev.. on 7 Jan 2010 04:56 D Walford wrote: > G-S wrote: >> CrazyCam wrote: >>> >>> Scooters, pushies and walking, yup, I'll believe, but you have to be >>> joking about car-pooling and public transport. >>> >> >> Public transport in and around Melbourne and across the state of >> victoria is showing consistent growth of between 4% and 8% depending >> upon location and mode. >> >> With those sorts of growth rates sustained (and they have been for >> some years now) it isn't long before we'll start to see noticable >> pattern shifts. > > Not likely when you factor in population increases which has as much to > do with the increased PT use as anything else. > For PT transport to have much effect on car use in Melbourne the State > Govt needs to spend mega bucks improving rail infrastructure. > I've lived in Melb's outer West for 30yrs and in that time there hasn't > been any infrastructure improvements. So would be an inopportune time to remind you that a recommendation of the 2008 Victorian Transport Plan was the construction of a new rail link in the outer western suburbs... ? Nev..
From: D Walford on 7 Jan 2010 06:27
Fran wrote: > On Jan 7, 7:30 pm, D Walford <dwalf...(a)internode.on.net> wrote: >> Fran wrote: >>> On Jan 7, 9:49 am, theo <theodo...(a)bigpond.com.au> wrote: >>>> On Jan 6, 9:44 am, Fran <fran.b...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> What do you suppose would happen to vehicle miles (and the composition >>>>> of the vehicle fleet) in Australia if the price of petrol went up and >>>>> stayed up by, say, 50 cents per litre? >>>> It's already done that in the last few years. And nothing much >>>> happened to the composition of the fleet, except that 'performance' >>>> cars got bigger and more powerful engines using more fuel. >>>> Regardless of the pain of opening your wallet at the Servo, fuel is >>>> the cheapest component of owning a motor vehicle. A vehicle costing >>>> $30K new being driven 12,000 kms per annum (the stated average for >>>> private vehicles) at 10 l/100km paying $1.20 per litre will cost $1440 >>>> in fuel. It will cost $500 in Rego fees, $500-800 in Insurance, will >>>> require one service at $250, depreciate by at least 25%, $7500, and >>>> will cost at least $2400 in Finance costs (I have taken this to be 8% >>>> of the $30K you no longer have in Fixed Term Deposit, actual borrowing >>>> will cost more). I won't bother with tyres ($200) and other minor >>>> incidentals, such as RAC membership. >>>> Your total costs are $12,590. An additional $0.50 per litre will add a >>>> whopping $600 to your costs. 4.8%. Whoopee! >>> As noted above, I substantially agree that *in the short run* (which >>> is to say within the cycle in which people trade their cars) 50 cents >>> per litre isn't going to make a lot of difference. (I'd be surprised >>> about the 12,000 annual km figure though -- maybe there are some >>> wealthy inner city dwellers who don't use their cars much, but I'd be >>> surprised if more than 50% of urban commuters who use their cars o >>> commute don't approach 20,000km each year). Work it out -- if you live >>> just 25km from work and go to work and home 276 times per year, >>> there's 13,800km already. Throw in recreational vehicle use, shopping >>> etc on weekends @ 40 km per weekend, and there's easily another 2100. >>> Annual trip to the snow and the north coast for Christmas? Add 2000 km >>> each. Commuters to Sydney drive from the Central Coast, Wollongong, >>> Picton and the Blue Mountains. Even Penrith is 50ks out. >> 16,000klms is the figure that is used as the national average for klms >> travelled per year. > > > It sounds light to me -- a bit like the difference between the average > wage and the wage that most people don't get. A couple of credible web sites agree on the 16,000klms, its not a figure that was plucked out of the air. Many people would do a lot less but of course many like me do a lot more, my May 09 Hilux has already done about 25,000klms yet my wife's 3.5yr old Subaru has only done 54,000klms. http://www.valuemail.com.au/explanation.aspx http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/29/Files/is15.pdf Daryl |