Voltz
Senior Member
And those regional commuter trains that radiate out from Naples are neat.
|
|
|
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
littlewill1166
Active Member
Of course, if you have an Amex Platinum card flying out of Montreal, you can easily get $50+ of "free" airport food with Priority Pass. And Aeroplan points... if you fly Air Canada. This is why I said VIA ordered too many business-class cars for its new fleet 2 years ago (they can change out the seats, so it's not a big deal).
roger1818
Senior Member
Maybe if you only count the cost of gas and ignore maintenance and depreciation. Mileage reimbursement rates are designated to include that and using the 2023 rate of 68 cents per km, that works out to about $272 each way.
lrt's friend
Active Member
Years ago, I used the mileage charge for a business trip and switched to VIA business class and a night stay at the Royal York. I road the train between Ottawa and Toronto in a blizzard, while somebody else white knuckled it by car. A wise decision for a winter business trip.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Truthfully though, most people only care about gas and parking when deciding to roadtrip. Only employers consider depreciation and maintenance.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
actual cost per mile varies wildly by car.
I own an older, reliable car which is basically entirely depreciated - I can assure you it costs me a fraction of $0.68/km to drive it, even with its terrible fuel efficiency. I'm guessing my mileage cost is closer to $0.25 all in, and my car gets 11l/100km.. Driving a brand new pickup? theoretically it costs you about $0.68/km, but about half the cost is depreciation, most of which occurs simply by the car aging and not directly from driving it. Depreciation costs also drop off a cliff after a vehicle passes about 5-6 years of age, and can be a lot lower depending on model. A full-sized, brand new KIA SUV will have a very high effective mileage cost as it depreciates by odometer very quickly and guzzles gas.. A 7-year old Honda Civic barely depreciates at all (likely in the $0.02-$0.03/km range) and gets excellent fuel efficiency and has minimal expected maitenence.. total all in cost is probably pretty close to $0.20/km.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
There are so many variables and it’s hard to generalise. I keep my cars until the bitter end, ideally a dozen years or more, and even at that I seldom put enough kms on them to truly wear them out. Driving to Ottawa arguably makes good use of an otherwise stranded asset that I have already depreciated to zero.
OTOH if you have a job where you are required to use your vehicle daily, or if you have a long commute, putting an incremental 1,000 kms on your vehicle may represent a significant use of things that wear - tires, oil, brakes, innards - and you may be shortening your vehicle’s life expectancy and/or hastening a new expenditure. So there is an incremental cost beyond fuel.
And if you lease your vehicle, and turn it back every 2-3 years within an agreed to km limit, it’s another equation again. Wear and tear may not matter but you have to ration your kms driven.
At the end of the day, I suspect the modal scenario is people who see their vehicles as a sunk cost and only worry about the fuel expense when considering other modes. With the convenience factor of choosing timing, and bundling first/last mile connection, in favour of auto use and human stress/fatigue in favour of the train. Trip time becomes one variable offset by many other things.
- Paul
OTOH if you have a job where you are required to use your vehicle daily, or if you have a long commute, putting an incremental 1,000 kms on your vehicle may represent a significant use of things that wear - tires, oil, brakes, innards - and you may be shortening your vehicle’s life expectancy and/or hastening a new expenditure. So there is an incremental cost beyond fuel.
And if you lease your vehicle, and turn it back every 2-3 years within an agreed to km limit, it’s another equation again. Wear and tear may not matter but you have to ration your kms driven.
At the end of the day, I suspect the modal scenario is people who see their vehicles as a sunk cost and only worry about the fuel expense when considering other modes. With the convenience factor of choosing timing, and bundling first/last mile connection, in favour of auto use and human stress/fatigue in favour of the train. Trip time becomes one variable offset by many other things.
- Paul
kEiThZ
Superstar
Railfans love to bring up depreciation and insurance. But this isn't how people think in real life. Nobody is doing a full cost comparison before a weekend roadtrip. For the average consumer these are sunk costs. They are already paying for their car and to insure it. It's the marginal costs that matter. This is gas and consumables (oil changes, tires, etc.). And for a lot of people, it's only gas.
MisterF
Senior Member
A lot of people think of it as only gas, but the reality is that it's significantly more than that. Just because people don't take the extra cost into account that doesn't mean it isn't there.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Nobody is suggesting the costs don't exist. Just that people don't consider them when making decisions on how to travel. And unless you have a way to force people to use a spreadsheet or calculator before each trip, you aren't going to change human behaviour.
If the only thing people looked at was ¢/km, nobody would ever own a car. Financially, owning a car isn't a great decision. So why do so many people still own cars? Because convenience, time, comfort and privacy all have value to a lot of people. Any effort to get people out of their cars has to at least address some of those intangibles in a way that does not substantially exceed their perceived marginal cost to use the car in their driveway.
roger1818
Senior Member
I do tend to agree. My point was that the real cost of driving is higher than the cost of gas, whether people consider it or not. Most Maintenance Schedules are based on mileage (though some items also have a timeout for low mileage vehicles).
I would also argue that most people buy cars because they never even consider the option of not owning one (or owning fewer cars).
crs1026
Superstar
Definitely a generational shift going on here, also. Neither of my kids, and very few of their friends, own a car. Granted, this is an urban, GTA based crowd…. which is an exception to the Canadian norm, perhaps….but very material to marketing HFR.
The cost of renting a car, driving it to Montreal, and parking it for a couple of days is definitely more than taking VIA.
- Paul
roger1818
Senior Member
True. It is common with Gen Z here in Ottawa as well, to the point where they aren't even getting their driver's license. They would rather live in a more walkable neighbourhood and save the cost (and responsibility) of owning a car. As a result, we are starting to see a shift in new developments.
TRONto
Active Member
Makes me think with all the WFH, will vehicle ownership go down? Many companies aren't requiring white collar workers to come at all and when you only go in 1 or 2 days, do you really need that second car?
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Young people have been getting their licenses later for a while now but the vast majority still have it by the time they are in their mid 20's.
There were 0.63 light motor vehicles for every person in Canada in 2021 - vs. 0.62 vehicles per capita in 2016 and 0.55 per capita in 2001. Vehicle ownership rates are actually increasing in Canada still, not declining.
Auto ownership rates have been declining in the inner areas of Canada's biggest cities from my understanding - but this is offset by higher ownership rates in suburbs.