Are the high petrol prices helping the recovery of rail traffic?

[A0]

Where you live in relation to your job is a choice. Our home ownership system actively discourages workforce mobility by making moving complex, slow and expensive. Almost everything in life makes moving closer to a new job hard - that needs to change. Even if we stick with the UK preference of ownership, there's no reason the system couldn't be changed to make the process of sale take a few weeks rather than a few months (e.g. by making all the searches electronic and instant so conducted before offering, and making accepted offers binding on both parties), while stamp duty (a tax on workforce mobility) should be removed from all primary residence transactions in favour of an ownership tax (set higher on unoccupied houses to discourage people leaving them empty).

Balderdash - the biggest deterrent by far to any form of relocation is usually things like family ties i.e. spouse / partner in job, children at local schools, possibly care responsibilities for elderly parents etc. Changing the house market would make precisely no difference to such challenges. The costs or process of moving house is usually a long, long way down the list of people's concerns.

And in terms of making "all the searches electronic" - you clearly haven't looked at what solicitors have to do - you can't automate many of those searches because you *have* to physically inspect the relevant documents particularly where things like rights of way, planning approvals etc are concerned.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2022 ==

Just want to add that judging by the current fuel station queues, people would rather burn money than use public transport.

No - public transport isn't a suitable alternative for very many people.

I'll offer you the example of my wife who is a primary school teacher in a village about 9 miles from our house. It can usually be driven in 20 minutes - in that time the local bus hasn't even got half way to the town centre, where she would have to change for another bus. And what about an evening like last night where she was at school until nearly 8pm as it was parents evening. Sure the village still gets an hourly bus service in the evening, but why should she sit around for potentially 50 minutes in a cold, remote village waiting for it, just because you have an anti-car bias ?

 

[MattRat]

No - public transport isn't a suitable alternative for very many people.

I'll offer you the example of my wife who is a primary school teacher in a village about 9 miles from our house. It can usually be driven in 20 minutes - in that time the local bus hasn't even got half way to the town centre, where she would have to change for another bus. And what about an evening like last night where she was at school until nearly 8pm as it was parents evening. Sure the village still gets an hourly bus service in the evening, but why should she sit around for potentially 50 minutes in a cold, remote village waiting for it, just because you have an anti-car bias ?

There are exceptions of course, but not everyone needs a car, and the queues suggests nearly everyone does drive, and that shouldn't be the case, it's inefficient and expensive, especially now. And I say this as a car enthusiast who loves cars, I just know they are generally better as a hobby than an efficient method of travel.

 

[Failed Unit]

No - public transport isn't a suitable alternative for very many people.

I'll offer you the example of my wife who is a primary school teacher in a village about 9 miles from our house. It can usually be driven in 20 minutes - in that time the local bus hasn't even got half way to the town centre, where she would have to change for another bus. And what about an evening like last night where she was at school until nearly 8pm as it was parents evening. Sure the village still gets an hourly bus service in the evening, but why should she sit around for potentially 50 minutes in a cold, remote village waiting for it, just because you have an anti-car bias ?

9 miles - about 30 minutes on a bike

** yes I know that it probably isn't practical as your wife probably has stuff that she needs to carry. When you add that and a change of clothes into the ruck sack the bike is looking less attractive. It also takes a very hard core person to ride in rain / cold / strong winds.

Sadly because of the way the UK in the past 40 years has designed everything around the car, if most people wanted to give it up tomorrow they can't. Look at Stevenage, everything is designed for people to drive to.

 

[A0]

9 miles - about 30 minutes on a bike

** yes I know that it probably isn't practical as your wife probably has stuff that she needs to carry. When you add that and a change of clothes into the ruck sack the bike is looking less attractive. It also takes a very hard core person to ride in rain / cold / strong winds.

Sadly because of the way the UK in the past 40 years has designed everything around the car, if most people wanted to give it up tomorrow they can't. Look at Stevenage, everything is designed for people to drive to.

Bad example citing Stevenage - because it actually *does* have a fairly extensive network of cycleways which were included in the original design of it in the 1950s.

Build it and they will come? Why Britain's 1960s cycling revolution flopped

Squint at Stevenage’s extensive 1960s protected cycleway network and you could be in the Netherlands – except for the lack of people on bikes. So why did the New Town’s residents choose the motor car over the bicycle?

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bletchleyite]

Look at Stevenage, everything is designed for people to drive to.

Does Stevenage not have paths for cycling like Redways? Generally the New Towns are awful for public transport but good for cycling and walking. I spent last week at my parents' house in Ormskirk, and one thing that stuck out to me was how unpleasant it was walking around the place breathing exhaust fumes, something I almost never have to do here as I can walk and cycle away from roads. (Some Redways do run alongside main roads, but the high speed limits on these seem to help disperse fumes quite well).

Hills don't help (in MK's case) but e-bikes have potential to redress that balance.

 

[A0]

There are exceptions of course, but not everyone needs a car, and the queues suggests nearly everyone does drive, and that shouldn't be the case, it's inefficient and expensive, especially now. And I say this as a car enthusiast who loves cars, I just know they are generally better as a hobby than an efficient method of travel.

And as somebody who owns two classic cars plus a daily driver - and used to drive on a daily basis for over 20 years, I'm going to say you're wrong.

Even when I worked briefly in West London (Ealing) back in the early 90s, it was quicker and more convenient to drive from mid-Herts than take the train.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2022 ==

9 miles - about 30 minutes on a bike

** yes I know that it probably isn't practical as your wife probably has stuff that she needs to carry. When you add that and a change of clothes into the ruck sack the bike is looking less attractive. It also takes a very hard core person to ride in rain / cold / strong winds.

Sadly because of the way the UK in the past 40 years has designed everything around the car, if most people wanted to give it up tomorrow they can't. Look at Stevenage, everything is designed for people to drive to.

30 minutes on a bike - 5 hours full on teaching a class of 30 primary school pupils an hour or so's preparation for the next day and marking at the end of day and a 30 minute cycle home after that - are you volunteering to do that ?

 

[MattRat]

9 miles - about 30 minutes on a bike

** yes I know that it probably isn't practical as your wife probably has stuff that she needs to carry. When you add that and a change of clothes into the ruck sack the bike is looking less attractive. It also takes a very hard core person to ride in rain / cold / strong winds.

Sadly because of the way the UK in the past 40 years has designed everything around the car, if most people wanted to give it up tomorrow they can't. Look at Stevenage, everything is designed for people to drive to.

Actually, she might get away with something like a 'Maxi Scooter' (250cc scooter). Fit some saddle bags for luggage. Much more efficient than a car.

 

[A0]

Actually, she might get away with something like a 'Maxi Scooter' (250cc scooter). Fit some saddle bags for luggage. Much more efficient than a car.

Once again - why should she?

Just because you and a few other 'nanny staters' say so isn't really a good answer.

She runs a small, fuel efficient supermini which costs us buttons to run - even with petrol prices being what they are. Why sacrifice the comfort and convenience for a hair shirt unnecessarily ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually, she might get away with something like a 'Maxi Scooter' (250cc scooter). Fit some saddle bags for luggage. Much more efficient than a car.

Then if it's freezing cold or tipping down? At least "manual" cycling keeps you warm.

 

[RT4038]

There are exceptions of course, but not everyone needs a car, and the queues suggests nearly everyone does drive, and that shouldn't be the case, it's inefficient and expensive, especially now. And I say this as a car enthusiast who loves cars, I just know they are generally better as a hobby than an efficient method of travel.

Cars may well be inefficient and expensive, but public transport is, to many people, usually even worse. If cars become more expensive vis a vis public transport and the household budget then gradually people will make residential, educational and employment decisions based on that. However, in the same way that moving from public transport use to cars happened over 30+ years, this will take quite some time to play out .

Judging people and their motives based on the length of queues at petrol stations is probably a fallacy

 

[MattRat]

Once again - why should she?

Just because you and a few other 'nanny staters' say so isn't really a good answer.

She runs a small, fuel efficient supermini which costs us buttons to run - even with petrol prices being what they are. Why sacrifice the comfort and convenience for a hair shirt unnecessarily ?

It was just a suggestion. If she needs the car, she needs the car, and it's good that it's small.

I just always aim for efficiency, because that's the best way for people to move about, efficiently. And for some people, it wouldn't really hurt them as much as they say it would. There's an alarming amount in giant compen- I mean, SUVs.

 

[A0]

Cars may well be inefficient and expensive, but public transport is, to many people, usually even worse.

And to an extent it ever was thus - the biggest drops in bus usage occurred not in the deregulation era of the 1980s but the 1950s and 1960s.

If cars become more expensive vis a vis public transport and the household budget then gradually people will make residential, educational and employment decisions based on that.

People will make a number of decisions - you're right, they may relocate, they might change their car for a "cheaper" one to run they might change job - there are too many permutations for there to be a 'one size fits all' approach.

On cars there are alot of people in 'short term' PCP type arrangements which mean 'trading down' to a newer, but smaller or cheaper to run car will be a serious consideration. For those of us who actually own our cars, the high price of the second hand market potentially makes changing car attractive - I was talking to a friend last week who's company had as their 'pool' car a Mazda 6 or Mondeo estate that had previously done time with one of their reps - they'd looked at disposing of it about 3 years ago and were offered £ 3k, so decided just to run it until it dropped - they actually sold in a couple of months back for £6k.....

However, in the same way that moving from public transport use to cars happened over 30+ years, this will take quite some time to play out .

And the factor that didn't exist 30 years ago was the ability for many jobs to work remotely - so that is a factor which will now come to play for many people.

 

[Roast Veg]

Many homes will be dropping from 2 cars to one, as the combined effects of fuel and new/used car prices bite. Public transport need only pick up the slack for some journeys and a lot of households can make a significant saving.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Many homes will be dropping from 2 cars to one, as the combined effects of fuel and new/used car prices bite. Public transport need only pick up the slack for some journeys and a lot of households can make a significant saving.

Car clubs can also be a big help towards this.

 

[Roast Veg]

Car clubs can also be a big help towards this.

I wish! The only car club in the area (Enterprise) don't have any cars at all in Wakefield.

 

[paul1609]

Car clubs can also be a big help towards this.

My nearest car club is 2 hours away by public transport or a 14 mile walk across the fields on Sundays, Bank Holidays or 3pm on Saturdays.

 

[A0]

Many homes will be dropping from 2 cars to one, as the combined effects of fuel and new/used car prices bite. Public transport need only pick up the slack for some journeys and a lot of households can make a significant saving.

No they won't - why would they ?

If you've got a car that's paid for the unless the incremental increase in fuel costs is what's making it unaffordable, then you've no need to change.

If you've got a car on a PCP or similar then the basic payments won't be changing so unless you've massively over-stretched yourself you might just as well see out the term of the PCP.

Used prices are only an issue for somebody coming into the market for the first time OR who's own car is being scrapped - because if you have a part-ex it'll be worth more to begin with.

At its simplest level - if you've got a £ 10k loan over 3 years that's about £ 290 / month - but you own the car at the end so the residual value is there. The biggest cost is / will be fuel, but even then it's not the "big" deal everyone is making it out to be.

If you do 10,000 miles / year (about the average) with a car that does 40mpg you'd need 250 gallons of fuel over the year.

250 gallons is ~ 1100 litres.

At 1.44 a litre that's about £ 1,600 p.a if that went up to 1.75 a litre that's £ 1,925 p.a. - a difference of £ 325 a year - or assuming an equal spread of cost £ 30 a month. To put that into context a 12 month season ticket from St Albans to London is £ 3952. So not sure why you think going from a car to public transport will somehow "save" money particularly for a regular traveller.

 

[cactustwirly]

Which is why I favour urban road use and parking taxation over blanket road pricing. It makes sense to penalise those who use cars when there is a viable alternative, not when there isn't. It also encourages use of P&R sites and dissuades "I'm in the car now so might as well drive all the way".

What happens if you live in an urban area, but there isn't a viable alternative.
Public transport in Reading is useless of you are not traveling within Reading or going to London.

I already pay enough for parking, I don't need to pay anymore. That also unfairly discriminates between rich people with off street parking and poorer people who live in terraced houses with on street parking.

 

[AM9]

No they won't - why would they ?

If you've got a car that's paid for the unless the incremental increase in fuel costs is what's making it unaffordable, then you've no need to change.

If you've got a car on a PCP or similar then the basic payments won't be changing so unless you've massively over-stretched yourself you might just as well see out the term of the PCP.

Used prices are only an issue for somebody coming into the market for the first time OR who's own car is being scrapped - because if you have a part-ex it'll be worth more to begin with.

At its simplest level - if you've got a £ 10k loan over 3 years that's about £ 290 / month - but you own the car at the end so the residual value is there. The biggest cost is / will be fuel, but even then it's not the "big" deal everyone is making it out to be.

If you do 10,000 miles / year (about the average) with a car that does 40mpg you'd need 250 gallons of fuel over the year.

250 gallons is ~ 1100 litres.

At 1.44 a litre that's about £ 1,600 p.a if that went up to 1.75 a litre that's £ 1,925 p.a. - a difference of £ 325 a year - or assuming an equal spread of cost £ 30 a month. To put that into context a 12 month season ticket from St Albans to London is £ 3952. So not sure why you think going from a car to public transport will somehow "save" money particularly for a regular traveller.

Each car owned has a charge just to keep it parked on the road, £100-200 VED for a modest vehicle, plus £55 MoT charge, and insurance - say upwards of £200. Against the cost of commuting to Central London - you've priced a London Thameslink season, there's also parking (could be anything from free to £10 per day), congestion charge for 230 days (230 x £15 + £3450). So this is knocking on the door of the full season ticket cost.

 

[A0]

Each car owned has a charge just to keep it parked on the road, £100-200 VED for a modest vehicle, plus £55 MoT charge, and insurance - say upwards of £200. Against the cost of commuting to Central London - you've priced a London Thameslink season, there's also parking (could be anything from free to £10 per day), congestion charge for 230 days (230 x £15 + £3450). So this is knocking on the door of the full season ticket cost.

But one can only take you to / from London whereas the other can do far more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2022 ==

What happens if you live in an urban area, but there isn't a viable alternative.
Public transport in Reading is useless of you are not traveling within Reading or going to London.

I already pay enough for parking, I don't need to pay anymore. That also unfairly discriminates between rich people with off street parking and poorer people who live in terraced houses with on street parking.

As ever like all good anti car socialists, Bletchleyite isn't worried about your legitimate concerns, merely about fleecing you for as much as possible in order to meet his ideological aims.

As I've pointed out many times, the anti car brigade used emissions as their bete noir for 20 years, the motor industry is fixing that, so now they need to go for something else.

The anti car brigade don't believe in freedom, only about extracting money - what they haven't, yet, explained is if people abandon their cars where they will go for the tax revenue that will have been lost. Less than intelligent councils that declared a "war on motorists" with obstructions and excessive parking charges are now having to deal with the consequences of their high streets in wholesale decline as people abandoned them for out of town developments or the internet - it serves them right and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

 

[MattRat]

But one can only take you to / from London whereas the other can do far more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2022 ==



As ever like all good anti car socialists, Bletchleyite isn't worried about your legitimate concerns, merely about fleecing you for as much as possible in order to meet his ideological aims.

As I've pointed out many times, the anti car brigade used emissions as their bete noir for 20 years, the motor industry is fixing that, so now they need to go for something else.

The anti car brigade don't believe in freedom, only about extracting money - what they haven't, yet, explained is if people abandon their cars where they will go for the tax revenue that will have been lost. Less than intelligent councils that declared a "war on motorists" with obstructions and excessive parking charges are now having to deal with the consequences of their high streets in wholesale decline as people abandoned them for out of town developments or the internet - it serves them right and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

I wouldn't call that anti car, I'd call that greed. Of course it's wrong. But at the same time, people should try to be encouraged to use public transport. Cars just don't move the numbers needed for cities to function. Outside of that, cars probably still have a place, but that would be a minority, and they wouldn't clog places up.

 

[paul1609]

Each car owned has a charge just to keep it parked on the road, £100-200 VED for a modest vehicle, plus £55 MoT charge, and insurance - say upwards of £200. Against the cost of commuting to Central London - you've priced a London Thameslink season, there's also parking (could be anything from free to £10 per day), congestion charge for 230 days (230 x £15 + £3450). So this is knocking on the door of the full season ticket cost.

The problem with your comparison on London commuting is that certainly outside of the M25 only a small proportion of people live within walking or cycling distance of the station so they need the car to commute to the station anyway. There are no connecting buses in most of the UK outside of the major conurbations. At the station they will be fleeced with central London parking prices anyway. At Ashford International its between £8.30 and £14.50 per day depending which car park you use. I think NCP at North Greenwich (outside the congestion zone) is £12.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Anti car socialist? What a load of rubbish. I own and drive a car.

What I think we should do is make other options better so cars are used less.

 

[Cowley]

Before we went too far down the rich not paying enough tax route I decided to start a new thread which you’ll find here:

The UK tax system. A friendly and informative debate…

split from this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/are-the-high-petrol-prices-helping-the-recovery-of-rail-traffic.228656/ As for where the 'lost revenue' would come from, perhaps we could get the rich to finally pay their taxes?

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[MattRat]

Anti car socialist? What a load of rubbish. I own and drive a car.

What I think we should do is make other options better so cars are used less.

Seconded. It's such an American term used to promote car consumption over sensible alternatives. It's one of the reasons people are paying the high pump prices in the first place.

 

[Roast Veg]

No they won't - why would they ?

If you've got a car that's paid for the unless the incremental increase in fuel costs is what's making it unaffordable, then you've no need to change.

If you've got a car on a PCP or similar then the basic payments won't be changing so unless you've massively over-stretched yourself you might just as well see out the term of the PCP.

Not using a car to avoid the fuel costs is functionally equivalent to not owning the car. Posts above highlight the significant cost of keeping a car on the road that you dont use, which is quite significantly more than the cost of "runabout" bus tickets and bike maintenance - remember we're talking secondary cars here, not primary. With the second hand market the way it is, selling up a car you own outright is pretty attractive right now though this obviously doesn't apply to PCP cars, but some people may choose either to avoid paying the balloon payment (if they might have otherwise) or not pick up a fresh PCP deal. This is all speculative, but I don't think it comes from an illogical place as you suspect.

 

[cactustwirly]

Not using a car to avoid the fuel costs is functionally equivalent to not owning the car. Posts above highlight the significant cost of keeping a car on the road that you dont use, which is quite significantly more than the cost of "runabout" bus tickets and bike maintenance - remember we're talking secondary cars here, not primary. With the second hand market the way it is, selling up a car you own outright is pretty attractive right now though this obviously doesn't apply to PCP cars, but some people may choose either to avoid paying the balloon payment (if they might have otherwise) or not pick up a fresh PCP deal. This is all speculative, but I don't think it comes from an illogical place as you suspect.

The bus is more expensive than using my car. That includes tax, insurance and fuel.
It is also double the time and runs at inconvenient times.
Fuel would have to rise a lot more for it to elbe a viable option.

 

[AM9]

But one can only take you to / from London whereas the other can do far more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2022 ==
.

I was addressing your erroneous assertion that using a car for commuting was cheaper than using car for commuting where you omitted most of the costs of driving into central London, yet didn't mention 'far more that it can
do'.

 

[miklcct]

The bus is more expensive than using my car. That includes tax, insurance and fuel.
It is also double the time and runs at inconvenient times.
Fuel would have to rise a lot more for it to elbe a viable option.

The express bus service in my area is at best as fast as the car, at worst 5 minutes slower, and it runs every 15-30 minutes on a clockface schedule during most of the day. But still the buses run empty most of the day with the exception of a few peak time journeys, where the patronage is still just around two dozens.

I really don't know what's wrong.

 

[Roast Veg]

The bus is more expensive than using my car. That includes tax, insurance and fuel.
It is also double the time and runs at inconvenient times.
Fuel would have to rise a lot more for it to elbe a viable option.

I am talking about country wide statistics, not your personal circumstances. Since I don't commute, the bus is significantly cheaper for my "runabout" purposes.