commuter rail fares - impact on house prices

ninky_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Is that really true?

For us, it almost always works out cheaper to travel off-peak by train. Maybe being in London makes a difference?

i don't think it is true. last year you could get 10 quid return london to portsmouth harbour. you'd need a very fuel efficient car to make driving with one person cheaper than that. plus if you use the tips on martins travel page you can get some very reasonable fares - you just have to book ahead online rather than turn up on the day and buy from the station.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/cheap-train-tickets

FTBFun

ninky wrote: »

i don't think it is true. last year you could get 10 quid return london to portsmouth harbour. you'd need a very fuel efficient car to make driving with one person cheaper than that. plus if you use the tips on martins travel page you can get some very reasonable fares - you just have to book ahead online rather than turn up on the day and buy from the station.

There's a reason

Anyway with advance fixed train tickets its perfectly possible to get most places in the country fairly inexpensively. I've been oop north for some stag does and weddings and booking advance has made it not that expensive.

ninky_2

FTBFun wrote: »

There's a reason

.

don't knock pompei! it's good for us sailing types.:D usually i have loads of boat stuff i need to take so the train isn't practical but it has proved handy for crew.

blueboy43

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Is that really true?

Of course its not. People tend to just compare the train cost against the petrol cost and ignore all the other costs of running a car.

ninky_2

blueboy43 wrote: »

Of course its not. People tend to just compare the train cost against the petrol cost and ignore all the other costs of running a car.

it would be quite interesting to compare use of a streetcar with taking the train as that includes all costs including petrol.

ruggedtoast

I have to comment on the "just don't live in London or do flexitime" mentality. Thats fine if you can get a job locally, but most people clambering over each-other to get on the Northern Line at London Bridge each morning aren't doing so for the fun of it. For most people they have to start work somewhere in Zone 1 or 2 at 9am and they finish at 5pm on a Friday.

No ifs or buts, if they dont do that they dont work. I've never been to a G7 city where the simple act of commuting to work is as expensive or miserable as it is in London. Its absolutely nuts that wave after wave of mass immigration from overseas of low paid workers into London, is justified by the assertion that there is no one to do low wage jobs; when there are plenty of unemployed in commuter towns who would gladly get on a train if they werent priced out of working in the capital.

ninky_2

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I have to comment on the "just don't live in London or do flexitime" mentality. Thats fine if you can get a job locally, but most people clambering over each-other to get on the Northern Line at London Bridge each morning aren't doing so for the fun of it. For most people they have to start work somewhere in Zone 1 or 2 at 9am and they finish at 5pm on a Friday.

No ifs or buts, if they dont do that they dont work. I've never been to a G7 city where the simple act of commuting to work is as expensive or miserable as it is in London. Its absolutely nuts that wave after wave of mass immigration from overseas of low paid workers into London, is justified by the assertion that there is no one to do low wage jobs; when there are plenty of unemployed in commuter towns who would gladly get on a train if they werent priced out of working in the capital.

so where are the jobsnatching migrants living then? and why can't the poor 'indigenous' unemployed people do the same? i get sick and tired of people blaming immigration for the ills of society. don't you think that working immigrants are taxed and that those taxes help pay the benefits of unemployed in commuter towns?

lostinrates

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Is that really true?

For us, it almost always works out cheaper to travel off-peak by train. Maybe being in London makes a difference?

Its not true in an ild Land rover but in my small car I could get two of us two London from west country, cheaper than one on the train. I had free parking so that was a saving ON TOP of that. And it took lest time to some parts of london than it did on train than tube. Not getting across london to NW from the west but say, Kensigton.

don't know how it would work with current petrol prices though.

The other saving of course, is that late trains don't always ''happen''. where we used to live 9:30pm was the latest departure time from London. So you'd not be ablt to enjoy a meal/go to theatre what ever. You'd be home before you would have left in a car! And if you did stay compare the price of a hotel with the costs of car ownership. Oh and the taxi to and from rural stations! Or the hour drive and parking at a station you could get to if you went and ducked out early. Driving was quicker and cheaper. Here I think it is quicker on the train, but don't know about costs with no sensible car to compare to.

I don't have free parking any more, but of course, its still possible to park on any number of metres in the evening for free while doing stuff not in the day and choose other options. I like cofortabe train rides with a good book but the truth is the cheaper tickets do not serve commuters, and many workers can'tbuy the tickets they could save on in advance, because they don't know in advance when they will be able to/need to travel!

People from where I live commute daily by car and train. We find the weekly commute works ok for us and is cheaper ATM.

Ninky is right to raise weekends away, but IMO, for a different reason than she does: they cost more and are a huge extra time drain (adding half a day each way practically) if you have to get a train change and then change again to the Gatwick Express or line to Heathrow. A car is going to get you there/home at the weird hour your plane arrives at/departs at. We're training it again next month and honestly the idea exhausts me....I'll probably be dead on my feet by the time we get there.

I really should buy a car of my own again!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

. Maybe being in London makes a difference?

And then some.....

From our other house to Aberdeen city centre is roughly 40 miles by car.

To get there by car, even in "rush hour", it's about a 45 to 55 minute journey with dual carriageway for most of it. On the bike it's more like 35 minutes. Petrol/Diesel is around £12 return.

By public transport it's the following.

1. Take a bus 6 miles the wrong direction. 20 minutes, £6 return.

2. Wait for train. 30 minutes.

3. Take train to Aberdeen. 40 minutes, £18 return.

4. Take bus to destination. 20 minutes, £3.60 return.

One hour and fifty minutes each way, plus say 10 minutes of walking time to and from the bus stops. Call it Two hours each way.... And £27.60 a day....To travel 40 miles to work.

Madness.

You just can't live without a car in most of the UK outside the major cities.

ninky_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You just can't live without a car in most of the UK outside the major cities.

i guess the costs of commuting by car have to be factored into to property location / future price also. basically anywhere that involves fuel to get between home / gainful employment is at risk of future fuel / fare increases.

a lot is made of opening up new areas with new transport links and people snapping up housing there as a result (the medway towns being a recent example). but it could well be that future travel costs make commuting from these unaffordable for many - which begs the question if the city centres are too expensive will more people be priced out of the market?

maybe this is why there needs to be an effort to devolve things from london. it's not just about building the regions / nations but the basic reality is that increasing distances between labour and place of work are unsustainable.