How much can house prices keep rising ?

lisyloo

Wouldn't life be a bit boring if we all liked and disliked the same things.

Absolutely, it's obviously much better for everyone if some like the city, some like the seaside, some the countryside and some the mountains.


However I would say that the vast majority live where is the best compromise.
Even if you are comfortably off and retired you would still probably compromise o being close to elderly relatives, grandchildren etc. so unless you can afford several properties then you probably have to compromise even if you aren't working.

GreatApe

lisyloo wrote: »

Travelling itself takes time and costs money. We have some driverless tubes and trains in London and it hasn't made travelling better.
So large amounts (of travel time) are negatives in general in their own right.
I don't see how driverless cars could transport people more efficiently than the tube in the centre of the city where each tube has hundreds of people per minute on them.

Cars are already the most efficient (speed convenience and cost) form of transport in most situations. Its why the car wins on miles driven vs trains tube bus. This is dispute cars being taxed to the time of some £1k a year on top of all other taxes. while trains and tubes and buses typically are subsidized and quite heavily

The computer driven car is just the maximum efficient form of the car. It will be cheaper per mile possibly a lot cheaper per mile. These cars will be designed for value per mile while normal cars are probably only really designed for 5 years of good service (with the expectations that the original purchaser has likely sold their new car in 2-5 years). With a self drive EV designed for 500,000 miles driven in 3 years the cost per mile is going to be much cheaper than say my last car which did 70k miles in 10 years.

So the self drive car will get cheaper. Smart algorithms and possibly time of day pricing will also allow better flow of cars. Going from 15mph in London to 25mph would be a significant time improvements

With regards to dense cities I see two possibilities. Either multiple tunnels for cars so these self drive cars can be even faster and cheaper or we will get the flying electric car (think a big drone with a 50 mile range before recharge). Outside of big dense cities we won't need either.

Also I feel we could see something in between a motorbike and a car. So maybe a smart CSR but smaller. So half the size of a smart car and for 1 passenger. That will be fine for 99% of trips and will take less road space and allow better flow and be cheaper. Currently car buyers buy a 5 door 2ton car for their 1% of marginal needs for a big car. In the future the fleet can actually represent the typical use which most the time is just single person

lisyloo

GreatApe wrote: »

Cars are already the most efficient (speed convenience and cost) form of transport in most situations.

What is your evidence for this?
Extremely limited personal experience.
Car are very inefficient and costly in london, which is why millions don't use cars. Traffic is very slow, there is a congestion charge and parking very expensive.

Even in bath, commuters who don't want to pa for parking daily have about a 1mile walk which even if your are able bodied and have no heavy goods will still take about 40 mins per day. I don't think it's much better in bristol.

In the countryside and many suburbs (if you aren't going to a city like bath, Bristol London) then probably do.
So sorry, that's not accepted by me for the reasons give unless you gave evidence.
Of course it also rules out this'd that can't drive.

The computer driven car is just the maximum efficient form of the car.

Not sure how recently you've been on a cummuter train, but they squeeze people on - often so that Ladies breasts and any other bodily parts you wish to mention are squeezed up against the next person.
Sorry but you don't get mire "efficient" than physically squeezing bodies together. Cars are not efficient space wish even us you share them. Computer driven Ines will still require braking distance. You might reduce thinking distance but not physical braking distance to stop the vehicle.

Going from 15mph in London to 25mph

This shows he out of touch you are.
Average speed down the strand at peak time on a normal day is about 3mph. That's if there isn't a breakdown, protest, or it's pouring with rain when fewer (millions) of people don't walk.

With regards to dense cities I see two possibilities. Either multiple tunnels for cars so these self drive cars can be even faster and cheaper or we will get the flying electric car (think a big drone with a 50 mile range before recharge).

Tunneks require a lot of infrastructure cost and in London of course you'd have to deal with intersecting with the existing underground infrastructure. Flying would be great -going From a 2d to 3D space but a lot of technology to work through first.

Also I feel we could see something in between a motorbike and a car.

There already are various vehicles you can buy, Sinclair C5 was a lop.
In London parking is a major problem to overcome, both cost, finding any and security. A loan scheme like boris bikes would be great but there is a need for Space plus you have to move vehicles around a lot. Boris bikes works great but in relatively small numbers e.g. After 30 bikes are taken from the rack there's nothing left - that's not too good in the city where millions of people work.

So maybe a smart CSR but smaller. So half the size of a smart car and for 1 passenger.

Braking distance for each vechicke will be reatively large, so whilst you can reduce the thinking part you can't reduce the physical braking distance part. The vehicles can probably stop more quickly than wpuld be comfortable for human beings with pens etc.

That will be fine for 99% of trips and will take less road space and allow better flow and be cheaper.

Disagree for commuter trips to places like bath, bristol, London.
Great for empty country roads she's we don't have a problem anyway.

Currently car buyers buy a 5 door 2ton car for their 1% of marginal needs for a big car. In the future the fleet can actually represent the typical use which most the time is just single person

That bit makes sense, but doesn't help at all with congestion that I can see, only makes it much worse in 2d space.

Long term you may be broadly right about hoe things are going t go, but I can't see things changing in the next 10 years. How long have we been working on electric cars/bikes? A decade or 2? And nothing in widespread use.

chucknorris

GreatApe wrote: »

Cars are already the most efficient (speed convenience and cost) form of transport in most situations. Its why the car wins on miles driven vs trains tube bus.

I've given up driving up to Newcastle (from Dorking) when I visit my parents, I now get the train, last few times I've been my (advance) return ticket was about £85 (the petrol alone would be about £90, not to mention other costs). But the big bonus is that I can relax and watch downloaded sky movies instead of having to drive all that way. The first time I got the train was because I had a broken wrist, and I couldn't drive, but I realised that taking the train was a much better experience than driving, even with though I take my dog with me.

economic

chucknorris wrote: »

I've given up driving up to Newcastle (from Dorking) when I visit my parents, I now get the train, last few times I've been my (advance) return ticket was about £85 (the petrol alone would be about £90, not to mention other costs). But the big bonus is that I can relax and watch downloaded sky movies instead of having to drive all that way. The first time I got the train was because I had a broken wrist, and I couldn't drive, but I realised that taking the train was a much better experience than driving, even with though I take my dog with me.

ive never owned a car and i dont think i ever will. i live in london 3min walk to the tube station. i just dont feel like i ever will need a car. helps to save so much money as well.

chucknorris

economic wrote: »

ive never owned a car and i dont think i ever will. i live in london 3min walk to the tube station. i just dont feel like i ever will need a car. helps to save so much money as well.

Living in Surrey and also really liking the outdoors, a car is a must for me, to get to all the great walks/beauty spots, but for very long journeys I have recently realised how much better the train can be.

lisyloo

economic wrote: »

ive never owned a car and i dont think i ever will. i live in london 3min walk to the tube station. i just dont feel like i ever will need a car. helps to save so much money as well.

When I'm in London I use buses, tubes, boris bikes and do a lot of walking. Very occasionally use uber or black cab, but only if having heavy luggage or working in the early hours.

In the suburbs or countryside that's not an option though and even some towns and cities don't have good public transport options particularly on Sundays.
As an example to get from one Bristol suburb to a neighbouring suburb e,g. Going from 7 to 9 on the clock, you'd probably have to get a bus into the centre and back out again.
Private transport in most towns, surburbs is a must unless you live in the centre of a town and never visit anyone in the countryside.

I use trains, tubes, buses, bicycle, legs, cab, hire car, private car and motorbike as appropriate, but public transport in London is way superior to anywhere else, even large cities like Bristol, where most people in the suburbs need cars.

economic

chucknorris wrote: »

Living in Surrey and also really liking the outdoors, a car is a must for me, to get to all the great walks/beauty spots, but for very long journeys I have recently realised how much better the train can be.

yes makes sense. living in highgate, i have walking distance access to woodlands, shops/restaurants/pubs, transport links, leisure centres/gyms basically everything you would want.

Crashy_Time

lisyloo wrote: »

Generally prices are cheaper outside London and the SE, but people still flock here everyday in their millions which is why I said ALL things considered i.e. Most people do consider the Higher house prices in their calculations.

Personally I can say that the higher wages we are getting MORE than compensate for the housing costs by some margin and that's true for a lot of the people in well paid jobs (that's why they are there and not somewhere else - if you're a stock broker or accountant I think it's fair to assume you can do the maths on earnings vs house prices equation).

Not everyone pays a massive premium, some people live in not so nice areas and millions choose to commute from cheaper areas.
Not ideal and definitely a compromise but I dispute that everyone is paying a premium - many make a sacrifice in other ways such as commute, space, quality of accommodation, or quality of area but not always financially, for example I have a 5bed dream home in the shires, but an adequate 1 bed flat in PCL, it is NOT more expensive in nominal terms, but lower quality and less space.

Budget hotel rates around Christmas say otherwise, view from some staff that I talked to was that they need to be cheap now or many potential visitors won`t come, and it will be nearly summer before they get fully booked at higher prices. Cabbie I had a long chat with in London said that the pre and post Christmas shopping has been killed by the internet, footfall and spending in London way down, still makes his money but needs to be out working much longer. Also the train I got back up to Glasgow on Christmas Eve was half empty (and the flight down almost fully empty) I can remember when trains from London/Birmingham on Christmas Eve were rammed full until you got past Glasgow.










As for the "Arts and Culture" draw of London, what has that got to do with house prices? All that was there before the credit bubble took over, and will still be there when it pops. I could attend some kind of "Arts" or "Cultural" event or venue every day/night here in Edinburgh if I wanted to, but who wants to? People mainly live in London for work, or because they were born there, and it is the amount of cheap credit sloshing around that defines how much they pay for housing, not how many art/fashion shows are going on around them.

lisyloo

i was referring to commuters coming for jobs - sorry if I wasn't clear on that.
I would love it to reduce but forecasts for train use and cross rail indicate otherwise.

I totally agree with you about culture. It has very little to do with where people choose to live and it is tedious.