Last edited by Michael; 29th January 2013 at 01:33 PM.
If you own a car there is no financial incentive to use public transport as you've pointed out but if you don't then the price can be competitive. Shouldn't really be that way I agree especially as more often than not the stations are miles away from where you need to be and the trains run at times that don't suite your needs. But more often than not fule is the only factor people cosider in the cost of journeys.
Infact all the political parties support this at the moment.
Adding more lines is expensive as I said. Adding some in some areas and then not others will just add bottlenecks.
There are two ways to do business -
Either stack them high and sell them cheap or sell them high and sell a few. The Government clearly have decided that increasing prices with inflation is going to help public transport. If it made financial sense I would use public transport, even though I have a car I own outright. It most cases it doesn't and running my own business I know so
@zag - Feel free to disagree, you're your own man If we all agreed life would certainly be boring wouldn't it? I agree Labour did propose it (I can't remember when in their 13 year term), but still, should it take years and years for politicians to mutually agree on such a project?
Robz (29th January 2013)
How about spending the 32 billion (and likely to double if other infrastructure projects are anything to go by) on bringing back the regional railways that were cut after Beeching. Improve the core rail network and send freight up off peak times to regional distribution depots getting the freight off the main roads. Another fast route and expensive route into London is not what we all want. Yes London is important and contributes 8% of GDP but the rest of the country contributes 92%, this is the real area for growth. It's unlikely the bulk of the public will be able to afford tickets on HS2, it simply doesn't add up now. I goto see family in Surrey from my home in Newcastle, the training for 3 of us is £300 return, plus the hassle of getting a toddler across London for a connection, it takes 5 hours. Driving takes the same time and costs £100 for diesel.
The London Metropolitan area generates 30% of the UK's GDP, not 8%, or if you limit it to London alone, its 20%.
The point of this line is not to help London! It is to help other cities. So, businesses don't just go "we have to be in London, because being anywhere else is too difficult as we can't carry out business easily with people in London", instead they can set up in Leeds or Birmingham and be able to get to London in a small amount of time.
I can't help but think that an awful lot of people are being very short-term about this. ie. 'people right now won't use it', well of course they won't, but then most people didn't use the original train systems when they were built!
And when counting up the cost of travel, make sure you include the other costs of your vehicles such as insurance, MOT, 'road tax', servicing, cleaning, parking, etc...
That £100 in fuel suddenly becomes quite a lot more.
Last edited by localzuk; 29th January 2013 at 02:12 PM.
2) Small amount of time? The journeys are not going to be that quicker. I don't think that the small decrease in time is going to result in offices springing up elsewhere.
As for car costs, as someone pointed out earlier, the costs are normally spread out over multiple journeys so whilst journeys do cost more than just fuel, the "extras" aren't normally that much extra.
Sorry to seem like I'm singling you out, but:I've not seen any evidence of that - no-one has published any that I've seen anyway! And the media would've usually jumped all over it.I'm sure I read that in France it just led to more growth in Paris as people set up business there (more money around, easier to get to) and similarly in (I think) Spain.
Car cost? Reasonable second hand car, £3k. Insurance? £600 a year. MOT £60 + whatever extra it costs. Tax, £150 a year. Cleaning, £30 a year if you want to look after it. Servicing, £500 a year maybe?As for car costs, as someone pointed out earlier, the costs are normally spread out over multiple journeys so whilst journeys do cost more than just fuel, the "extras" aren't normally that much extra.
So suddenly, that cost isn't so small!
Personally, I couldn't give a monkey's either way.
By the time it is "delivered" the opposition of the day will be calling the government out for the massive waste of public money. The government will be saying how important it is for the country etc etc etc.....and on it goes.
Public transport will NEVER* be the preferred mode of transport whilst it remains so expensive.**
*NEVER = in my foreseeable lifetime
** This IS just opinion and NOT fact
quick calculation including cost of fuel as two grand over the year. (I divided car cost by 10 assuming you own the car for 10 years.) so £3640 total a year, divide that by 10000 miles a year = £0.364 a mile.
It costs me £1.60 one way into town on a bus, 1.5 miles away = £1.066 a mile, so 10000 miles a year = £10666.666
Either my maths is wrong or your argument that public transport is cheaper is wrong. I think it's the latter.
Last edited by Robz; 29th January 2013 at 03:00 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)