How much can house prices keep rising ?

GreatApe

lisyloo wrote: »

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.




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



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.

Cars on average are the most efficient form of transport this is clear by the simple fact that more person miles are done with cars than are with trains tubes airplanes combined. This is dispute the fact that cars are heavily taxed while tubes and trains are often heavily subsidised.

Efficiency isn't about how many people can fit in one given square meter of tube or car space. Efficiency is primarily measured in cost (before taxes) vs outcome. So a single person car can be more efficient than a carriage cramped with 100 people.

Its clear trains themselves are very efficient but all the other infrastructure needed to make them work pull trains back a lot. A clear example is the energy efficrncy of trains vs cars. If you take the whole system even the London underground actually uses more energy per passenger mile than a current new efficient car.


Self drive tech is software you don't need electric self drive cars you can use the same tech in diesel or petrol. With regards to the speed to rollout I don't see why it would take longer than the speed for dumb mobiles to be replaced by smart mobiles. The tech oa not the car it is the sensors and processors and software all of which will scale like computers.

I see either fleets of self drive cars where the average passanger per trip is higher. So imagine how uber allows people to share a taxi a vit like that but much more efficient. So we go from 1 person per car to 3 persons per car thus reducing congestion greatly and increasing speed. Or that cara will be half as wide as current cars so you can have two side by side thus each road doubles its capacity.

I do not for see self drive cars driving right next to each other to make better use of the road I for see more people in each car.


The self drive car will be very efficient as they will have Mich higher milage lives in the same way buses and trains are designed to drive for 1 million or multiple million miles so will self drive cars. That will take the per mile cost much lower than current ownership.

Overall I see a huge change and very rapidly. My best guess is it starts as a trickle in 2020 and by 2030 self drive cars have majority market share of all transport.

I think they could kill intercity trains and we could end up converting train lines into roads.

lisyloo

Doesn't matter how you define efficiency, we simply don't have the space for it on the roads in London in 2d.

GreatApe

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.

But the £90 petrol is probably in the region of £30 petrol £60 tax while the £85 train ticket is possibly £85 train ticket and £50 various train subsidies. Rough guesses.

So its more like £30 vs £130

GreatApe

lisyloo wrote: »

Doesn't matter how you define efficiency, we simply don't have the space for it on the roads in London in 2d.

I don't expect the tubes to shut in London I never said anything like that. I said the car is already dominant and most efficient and its going to get even better.

Transport stats show 78% of all miles done are via car. The other 22% includes trains trams buses flying cycling and walking combined. Clearly the car is most efficient on average else why would it have 78% market share?

We also know cars contribute roughly £35 billion pa in vehicle taxes (VED and hydrocarbon taxes) and dispitr this huge tax burden it is still currently dominant and most efficient and set to get much more so yet.

In London I would guess it will be a bigger hit to buses than tubes and the London bus network and usage AFAIK is higher than the tube usage

Sapphire

lisyloo wrote: »

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

I disagree with this. For some culture doesn't matter – I do have friends who live permanently in the countryside, in beautiful and even isolated places, but that wouldn't suit me long term. Although I love staying in the countryside for brief periods, as a Londoner born and bred I think I would feel terribly isolated living without access to such things as museums, studying and other cultural amenities that interest me – not to mention decent shops close to where I live. I'm lucky, though, in that I also have two Royal Parks and the Thames within quick walking distance to where I live.

That's not to say that I wouldn't dislike living in many parts of London, including central London, which is too polluted, noisy and overcrowded now for my liking. But being able to visit cultural centres easily is very important to me.

I don't have a car and don't intend owning one – if I need to get somewhere at a distance I use trains, buses or the Tube.

chucknorris

GreatApe wrote: »

But the £90 petrol is probably in the region of £30 petrol £60 tax while the £85 train ticket is possibly £85 train ticket and £50 various train subsidies. Rough guesses.

So its more like £30 vs £130

I know what you are trying to say but because I can't personally reclaim the tax or be forced into the returning the subsidies, it remains £90 (plus other wear and tear/running costs, which you seem to be ignoring) v £85.

But that is secondary, I think that you are missing the bigger issue (certainly to me), instead of having to drive for about 12 hours (return trip, I always hit some traffic), I get to relax and watch movies, and also have a drink and something to eat, plus also usually someone to talk to, apart from my dog. So I arrive refreshed, rather than tired.

AdrianC

GreatApe wrote: »

I said the car is already dominant and most efficient and its going to get even better.

Transport stats show 78% of all miles done are via car.

Now look at how that splits around the country.

It's very simple - in large swathes of the country, and for many journeys, there is no viable alternative to the private car, simply because public transport either doesn't exist, or doesn't take you where you want to go.

Sure, I live way out in the boonies - my nearest bus stop is five miles away (and is very restricted in where and when it'll take me), and my nearest station is 20 miles away.

But I used to live on the edge of the M25. Public transport into town? No problem! Great! Tube station at the end of my road, trains into London every 10-15 minutes through the working day, down to every 30 on Sundays. But if you wanted to go to the next town AROUND the M25...? Into London, across London, out of London. Madness.

My old man lives in a flat on the edge of the city centre of Sheffield. Into the centre? No problem. Walk down the road a bit, get on a tram. But he wants to get to a supermarket or the main hospital? A nightmare of changing buses and trams. Or a taxi, since he doesn't drive.

You want to know why the car is behind 78% of journeys? THAT's why.

GreatApe

AdrianC wrote: »

Now look at how that splits around the country.

It's very simple - in large swathes of the country, and for many journeys, there is no viable alternative to the private car, simply because public transport either doesn't exist, or doesn't take you where you want to go.

Sure, I live way out in the boonies - my nearest bus stop is five miles away (and is very restricted in where and when it'll take me), and my nearest station is 20 miles away.

But I used to live on the edge of the M25. Public transport into town? No problem! Great! Tube station at the end of my road, trains into London every 10-15 minutes through the working day, down to every 30 on Sundays. But if you wanted to go to the next town AROUND the M25...? Into London, across London, out of London. Madness.

My old man lives in a flat on the edge of the city centre of Sheffield. Into the centre? No problem. Walk down the road a bit, get on a tram. But he wants to get to a supermarket or the main hospital? A nightmare of changing buses and trams. Or a taxi, since he doesn't drive.

You want to know why the car is behind 78% of journeys? THAT's why.

did you not just say that on average the car is the most efficient form of transport but use more than 10 words to do it?

The fact that dense trains/trams/buses in many places do not exist is because it would be inefficient for them to exist. Even in London the car is the primary method. This is despite the fact that cars are taxed some £35B a year while public transport is often subsidized.

The next 15 years will see a great improvement in the efficiency and cost of cars while there will not be much improvement in trains/trams/tube.

I really think the self drive taxi will already push the cars dominant 78% of all miles to a higher figure. Even if that view is a mistake the fact that cars will become more efficient will mean the cost of doing car miles will drop which is very important and useful as 78% of miles are done with cars.

AdrianC

GreatApe wrote: »

did you not just say that on average the car is the most efficient form of transport but use more than 10 words to do it?

No, I didn't say that.

GreatApe

chucknorris wrote: »

I know what you are trying to say but because I can't personally reclaim the tax or be forced into the returning the subsidies, it remains £90 (plus other wear and tear/running costs, which you seem to be ignoring) v £85.

Its important to distinguish between comparing technology vs comparing taxes.

And yes there are more costs than just the fuel however I expect those costs to go down with fleet operated services who will buy cars capable of 500,000 miles so the per mile capital cost will be low. Eg a £20k car over 500,000 miles is about 4p/mile + 2p/mile fuel + 2p/mile other which gives a cost in the region of 8p/mile thus a 100 mile trip (eg Birmingham to London) will cost in the region of £10 or a 400 mile trip (eg London to Edinburgh) will cost in the region of £40 and you can take upto 4 passengers for that sum.

The trip for London to Edinburgh would be some 7 hours by car vs 4.5 hours by train vs 1.5 hours by plane. However the point to point times will probably be closer to 7h vs 7h

But that is secondary, I think that you are missing the bigger issue (certainly to me), instead of having to drive for about 12 hours (return trip, I always hit some traffic), I get to relax and watch movies, and also have a drink and something to eat, plus also usually someone to talk to, apart from my dog. So I arrive refreshed, rather than tired.

The self drive taxi will likely be more comfortable and faster than a train point to point and certainly cheaper pre tax. Many trips via train are difficult due to the point to point nature of trains. For instance if you want to go from Telford to Luton it is a 2 hour drive or it is a 4 hour multiple train/bus/taxi trip plus the car is more comfortable eg imagine moving multiple suitcases it would be a nightmare on multiple trains vs throwing it in the back in a car just once.