commuters whinge, where does all that money go?

[maniacmartin]

London is a parasite on the country. Too many companies want to have offices in London because other companies do, and this has snowballed out of control. Until the government provides stronger incentives for companies to move out of London then I can't see this ending

 

[Yew]

The real problem with season ticket prices really does stem from the property market in the UK, which is in itself a product with our obsessions with getting on the property ladder, having a garden, and at least one, but preferably three, spare rooms.

However, we do have some of the smallest houses in the world, just look at how on new estates they are crammed in. Unfortunately this is one disadvantage of green belts, having to fit more people in the same amount of space.

 

[Greenback]

However, we do have some of the smallest houses in the world, just look at how on new estates they are crammed in. Unfortunately this is one disadvantage of green belts, having to fit more people in the same amount of space.

Yes, modern houses are far smaller than those of years past. We lookd at one on a new estate in 2007 that, even though it had been extended, was still quite cramped in my eyes. The kitchen was not even wide enough to stretch my arms out.

Yet these houses seem pretty popular, probably as they are all that can be afforded for many if they want to escape city living.

 

[jon0844]

They're popular because that's all so many people can afford. It's why at the height of the property boom of the 90s and 00s all the property programmes on TV spoke of Hackney, Tottenham etc as being 'up and coming areas'.

Erm, no. They were simply the only places people could afford and they likely hated them, and their surroundings.

To move from my flat in Enfield to somewhere bigger, I'd either have moved towards Edmonton, Tottenham and Hackney or out of London. I opted for the latter!

 

[chuckles1066]

Q: Where does the money go? A: To the Government (mostly).

Q: Why do those greedy TOCS put up the Fares so much? A: Because the Government tells them to.

So absolutely no use in the Government taking over. Have you seen East Coast prices come down since they took that over?

I find it amusing that the Government persists in increases taxes on motorists under the guise of getting them out of their cars and onto public transport whilst, at the same time, ensuring that public transport is so p1$$p00r that no-one in their right mind would use it unless there was no other alternative.

And there's your answer.

The only people who use the railways to commute are those who have no other realistic option......a captive audience. And when you've got a captive audience with no other options, you can pretty much do what you want to them.

And not just railways. If you want people on buses, for example, then give them five services an hour between 7.30a.m and 8.30a.m, 4.30p.m and 5.30p.m and charge them £2 return.........£10 a week to get to and from work and a guarantee that the longest you'll be stood about is 12 minutes, you'd have the buses filled to capacity.

But the UK Government won't do it.......guess why? They need the fuel duty revenue from motorists who don't have an alternative.

You have not been charged for this lesson.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The "expensive" railway at places like Peterborough has led to property prices taking off like a rocket since electrification.
House owners take the benefit of this, but grumble about paying for the railway improvements which brought it about.
Kent folk opposed HS1, forgetting that the original railway was the reason they can commute to London in the first place.
You can see the same syndrome in the Chilterns with HS2.

Annual ticket rises are pretty well the same across the network, but investment is not.
Recent massive investments have been concentrated on WCML, and now going in to Thameslink, Crossrail and electrification.
The ECML is due its fair share of upgrades in the near future.
It has a fast, efficient service and wins hands down against the competition.
Many parts of the country get the fare increases but have no prospect of improved services.

And on your next trip to London, count the number of orange-suited folk on the tracks. They all have to be paid for.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

London is a parasite on the country. Too many companies want to have offices in London because other companies do, and this has snowballed out of control. Until the government provides stronger incentives for companies to move out of London then I can't see this ending

People referred to this problem in the 18thC of London sucking the rest of the country dry , as indeed did the Parisians a century later.

London basically (love or hate it) - is an international trading and culteral city - and with respect ,you cant move that to Carlisle,Lampeter or Scunthorpe. Not for the high level interactions anyway.

I myself , struggled 30 years to get a foot on the housing ladder , living in a not great bit of South London , sold my car , and for a few months (even as a BR manager) took a part time weekend job to help the cash flow. Just like many others.

Long distance commuting was encouraged by the Govt in the 60's as a decongesting London policy (as were new towns like Hatfield etc - which ended up as population dormitories for London almost by accident) - BR were encouraged to serve them , as it was perceived that the inner city suburbs had "had it". - today's challenges are serving both buoyant markets.

 

[Drsatan]

Yes, modern houses are far smaller than those of years past. We lookd at one on a new estate in 2007 that, even though it had been extended, was still quite cramped in my eyes. The kitchen was not even wide enough to stretch my arms out.

Yet these houses seem pretty popular, probably as they are all that can be afforded for many if they want to escape city living.

My AS Economics text book (didn't study the subject at A2 level since it was too hard!) stated that due to the perverse nature of planning law, British houses were among the smallest and most expensive in Europe. That's not due to too many restrictions on where houses can be built, but due to too few regulations concerning room sizes, the types of houses (or flats) that can be built, and the layout of new estates. I noticed this when I stayed at a campsite in Amstelveen (suburb of Amsterdam) this summer: the houses and flats were laid out in a nice geometrical manner, compared to the sprawl of most new estates, and houses were a lot bigger than most British new build houses. I accept that the Netherlands (and Germany) benefited since most houses were built after 1945 due to WW2 but there's a lot we can learn from housing design and planning on the continent. Take a look at a street of residential flats in Germany, Scandanavia or the Netherlands and a sprawl of tiny new houses in the UK and there's an obvious difference.

I'd also suggest that while lots more flats have been built in the last 13 years, they're typically only large enough for one person. I also read somewhere that developers get around the 'social housing' or 'key workers housing' requirement by building lots of one bedroom flats or houses and declaring them to be 'social housing'. What I'd suggest is the reintroduction of the Parker Morris standards and for housebuilders to focus on building three bedroom flats for families. However, I can't imagine Mark Prisk agreeing to give councils more power to specify the layout and types of housing on new estates.

 

[shinkansen1966]

So in the last four years my season ticket has gone up by over £1000, so does anyone know where all that extra money is going in improvements to my line?

The UK government remains committed to inflation busting ticket price rises. The extra revenue raised reduces the taxpayer subsidy.