Can’t afford to rent or buy - don’t know what to do

Herzlos

theoretica said:

The question in my mind, is if public transport were subsidised - who would actually benefit?

Everyone would, basically.

People who could take public transport would, which would in turn mean less traffic, less cars parked in destinations, less fumes, less accidents, less wear and tear on roads, etc.

Leisure destinations would see more footfall as people can more easily hop on a train into a city to go shopping. Businesses nearby would see more footfall as people walk past rather than drive past.

Commuters would spend less on the commute and have more money to spend at the destination.

Think of what we could do with all the space currently dedicated to car parking, if we were to reduce the demand sufficiently. More green space, more parks, more leisure space, more open air dining, etc.

For the most part, cars suck especially for single occupants. 1500+kg blocks of metal and plastic, burning fuel to move ~75kg of person about. Just seems kind of wasteful.

Who *doesn't* benefit from subsidized public transport?

sheramber

Herzlos said:

theoretica said:

The question in my mind, is if public transport were subsidised - who would actually benefit?

Everyone would, basically.

People who could take public transport would, which would in turn mean less traffic, less cars parked in destinations, less fumes, less accidents, less wear and tear on roads, etc.

Leisure destinations would see more footfall as people can more easily hop on a train into a city to go shopping. Businesses nearby would see more footfall as people walk past rather than drive past.

Commuters would spend less on the commute and have more money to spend at the destination.

Think of what we could do with all the space currently dedicated to car parking, if we were to reduce the demand sufficiently. More green space, more parks, more leisure space, more open air dining, etc.

For the most part, cars suck especially for single occupants. 1500+kg blocks of metal and plastic, burning fuel to move ~75kg of person about. Just seems kind of wasteful.

Who *doesn't* benefit from subsidized public transport?

You  assume public transport goes direct from A to B which is not  necessarlly the case,

For example
When I was working  the bus took 45 minutes minimum to travel from my town to the office town, plus waiting for the  time walking to the bus stop, waiting for the bus , and walking from the bus station to the office.

The same reversed for the homeward journey. in all weathers.

Travelling by car I could be sitting at my desk 20 minutes after leaving the house.

I could do a supermarket weekly shop on the way hime, loading the bags into the car and bringing them to my house.

i couldn't carry several bags of shopping on a bus and then carry from the bus stop to my house.

I currently have a bus pass but the buses are not convenient for where I want to go or when. 

it needs more than subsides fares.

RHemmings

sheramber said:

Herzlos said:

theoretica said:

The question in my mind, is if public transport were subsidised - who would actually benefit?

Everyone would, basically.

People who could take public transport would, which would in turn mean less traffic, less cars parked in destinations, less fumes, less accidents, less wear and tear on roads, etc.

Leisure destinations would see more footfall as people can more easily hop on a train into a city to go shopping. Businesses nearby would see more footfall as people walk past rather than drive past.

Commuters would spend less on the commute and have more money to spend at the destination.

Think of what we could do with all the space currently dedicated to car parking, if we were to reduce the demand sufficiently. More green space, more parks, more leisure space, more open air dining, etc.

For the most part, cars suck especially for single occupants. 1500+kg blocks of metal and plastic, burning fuel to move ~75kg of person about. Just seems kind of wasteful.

Who *doesn't* benefit from subsidized public transport?

You  assume public transport goes direct from A to B which is not  necessarlly the case,

For example
When I was working  the bus took 45 minutes minimum to travel from my town to the office town, plus waiting for the  time walking to the bus stop, waiting for the bus , and walking from the bus station to the office.

The same reversed for the homeward journey. in all weathers.

Travelling by car I could be sitting at my desk 20 minutes after leaving the house.

I could do a supermarket weekly shop on the way hime, loading the bags into the car and bringing them to my house.

i couldn't carry several bags of shopping on a bus and then carry from the bus stop to my house.

I currently have a bus pass but the buses are not convenient for where I want to go or when. 

it needs more than subsides fares.

It certainly does need more than just subsidised fares. But, for a lot of people - not everyone - the service is probably good enough for them already. It's just too expensive.

Take Swindon for example. If there were some special 'commuter' train passes available which allowed travel on a limited number of trains (not matching everyone's working hours but a lot of people), and those passes were £300 a month and included Zone 1 (at least) travel, then that would suit a lot of people and they could make it work for them. The passes would be sold, say, monthly or weekly, and on an app with photo ID. 

Going more general, as in my example above, it doesn't have to be all public transport fares that are subsidised. It could be a crafted offering suitable for those who live in (e.g.) Swindon but work in London. And, not suitable for those who would try and bypass normal fares. That would keep the cost of the subsidy down, while allowing people to more feasibly move further away from London to be able to buy a house. 

Note that I don't think that any scheme will work for all workers in London - there are always going to be exceptions. But, that doesn't mean that a solution that would help many people should not be put into place.

Note also that I support more affordable public transport for all. But, the above is a compromise between what I would like and what might actually happen in the future. 

Returning more to the topic of the thread, I checked out house prices in Milton Keynes and they are cheaper than I thought there would be. There are limited tickets from MK to London at 6 pounds something a journey, but a monthly train pass is £583, which puts an upper limit on travel. Not the best situation, but it's a place where people can buy a family home for a more reasonable price and commuting to London is not too long (one hour to Victoria) or ruinously expensive. 

theoretica

RHemmings said:

sheramber said:

Herzlos said:

theoretica said:

The question in my mind, is if public transport were subsidised - who would actually benefit?

Everyone would, basically.

People who could take public transport would, which would in turn mean less traffic, less cars parked in destinations, less fumes, less accidents, less wear and tear on roads, etc.

Leisure destinations would see more footfall as people can more easily hop on a train into a city to go shopping. Businesses nearby would see more footfall as people walk past rather than drive past.

Commuters would spend less on the commute and have more money to spend at the destination.

Think of what we could do with all the space currently dedicated to car parking, if we were to reduce the demand sufficiently. More green space, more parks, more leisure space, more open air dining, etc.

For the most part, cars suck especially for single occupants. 1500+kg blocks of metal and plastic, burning fuel to move ~75kg of person about. Just seems kind of wasteful.

Who *doesn't* benefit from subsidized public transport?

You  assume public transport goes direct from A to B which is not  necessarlly the case,

For example
When I was working  the bus took 45 minutes minimum to travel from my town to the office town, plus waiting for the  time walking to the bus stop, waiting for the bus , and walking from the bus station to the office.

The same reversed for the homeward journey. in all weathers.

Travelling by car I could be sitting at my desk 20 minutes after leaving the house.

I could do a supermarket weekly shop on the way hime, loading the bags into the car and bringing them to my house.

i couldn't carry several bags of shopping on a bus and then carry from the bus stop to my house.

I currently have a bus pass but the buses are not convenient for where I want to go or when. 

it needs more than subsides fares.

It certainly does need more than just subsidised fares. But, for a lot of people - not everyone - the service is probably good enough for them already. It's just too expensive.

Take Swindon for example. If there were some special 'commuter' train passes available which allowed travel on a limited number of trains (not matching everyone's working hours but a lot of people), and those passes were £300 a month and included Zone 1 (at least) travel, then that would suit a lot of people and they could make it work for them. The passes would be sold, say, monthly or weekly, and on an app with photo ID. 

Going more general, as in my example above, it doesn't have to be all public transport fares that are subsidised. It could be a crafted offering suitable for those who live in (e.g.) Swindon but work in London. And, not suitable for those who would try and bypass normal fares. That would keep the cost of the subsidy down, while allowing people to more feasibly move further away from London to be able to buy a house. 

Note that I don't think that any scheme will work for all workers in London - there are always going to be exceptions. But, that doesn't mean that a solution that would help many people should not be put into place.

Note also that I support more affordable public transport for all. But, the above is a compromise between what I would like and what might actually happen in the future. 

Returning more to the topic of the thread, I checked out house prices in Milton Keynes and they are cheaper than I thought there would be. There are limited tickets from MK to London at 6 pounds something a journey, but a monthly train pass is £583, which puts an upper limit on travel. Not the best situation, but it's a place where people can buy a family home for a more reasonable price and commuting to London is not too long (one hour to Victoria) or ruinously expensive. 

Thus subsidising Swindon/Milton Keynes or wherever to become dormitories for London workers and increasing the capacity needed on transport lines.

Balancing where there is housing and where there are jobs would reduce the total amount of transport needed which seems desirable in itself - for time spent, congestion, cost (whoever is paying) and environment... 

Herzlos

sheramber said:

Herzlos said:

theoretica said:

The question in my mind, is if public transport were subsidised - who would actually benefit?

Everyone would, basically.

People who could take public transport would, which would in turn mean less traffic, less cars parked in destinations, less fumes, less accidents, less wear and tear on roads, etc.

Leisure destinations would see more footfall as people can more easily hop on a train into a city to go shopping. Businesses nearby would see more footfall as people walk past rather than drive past.

Commuters would spend less on the commute and have more money to spend at the destination.

Think of what we could do with all the space currently dedicated to car parking, if we were to reduce the demand sufficiently. More green space, more parks, more leisure space, more open air dining, etc.

For the most part, cars suck especially for single occupants. 1500+kg blocks of metal and plastic, burning fuel to move ~75kg of person about. Just seems kind of wasteful.

Who *doesn't* benefit from subsidized public transport?

You  assume public transport goes direct from A to B which is not  necessarlly the case,

For example
When I was working  the bus took 45 minutes minimum to travel from my town to the office town, plus waiting for the  time walking to the bus stop, waiting for the bus , and walking from the bus station to the office.

The same reversed for the homeward journey. in all weathers.

Travelling by car I could be sitting at my desk 20 minutes after leaving the house.

I could do a supermarket weekly shop on the way hime, loading the bags into the car and bringing them to my house.

i couldn't carry several bags of shopping on a bus and then carry from the bus stop to my house.

I currently have a bus pass but the buses are not convenient for where I want to go or when. 

it needs more than subsides fares.

It would need more than subsidised fares to appeal to everyone, sure. And if you took had enough demand you could presumably run more buses, which would run faster if there was less traffic. Though to be fair, you're never going to get everyone to give up their cars even if public transport was free, but if you can move some of them you can still get an improvement.

We definitely need a much more joined up and useful public transport service in the UK, especially if you're not going from satellite to hub. Going from town in the commuter belt to the city centre is easy, but going from a commuter town to another usually involves going into the city and back out. I know a few people who would have had a 20 minute drive or a 2 hour bus because the routes just don't exist.

With my commute, I can do it in 45 mins via train + 20 mins walking, or I can do it in somewhere between 50-120 minutes in the car depending on traffic, road works, etc. The big difference is that even when paying for an annual season pass, the train is more expensive than the car. So even though the train is the better experience (I can read, watch a movie, deal with work emails or whatever) I usually take the car.

RHemmings

theoretica said:

RHemmings said:

sheramber said:

Herzlos said:

theoretica said:

The question in my mind, is if public transport were subsidised - who would actually benefit?

Everyone would, basically.

People who could take public transport would, which would in turn mean less traffic, less cars parked in destinations, less fumes, less accidents, less wear and tear on roads, etc.

Leisure destinations would see more footfall as people can more easily hop on a train into a city to go shopping. Businesses nearby would see more footfall as people walk past rather than drive past.

Commuters would spend less on the commute and have more money to spend at the destination.

Think of what we could do with all the space currently dedicated to car parking, if we were to reduce the demand sufficiently. More green space, more parks, more leisure space, more open air dining, etc.

For the most part, cars suck especially for single occupants. 1500+kg blocks of metal and plastic, burning fuel to move ~75kg of person about. Just seems kind of wasteful.

Who *doesn't* benefit from subsidized public transport?

You  assume public transport goes direct from A to B which is not  necessarlly the case,

For example
When I was working  the bus took 45 minutes minimum to travel from my town to the office town, plus waiting for the  time walking to the bus stop, waiting for the bus , and walking from the bus station to the office.

The same reversed for the homeward journey. in all weathers.

Travelling by car I could be sitting at my desk 20 minutes after leaving the house.

I could do a supermarket weekly shop on the way hime, loading the bags into the car and bringing them to my house.

i couldn't carry several bags of shopping on a bus and then carry from the bus stop to my house.

I currently have a bus pass but the buses are not convenient for where I want to go or when. 

it needs more than subsides fares.

It certainly does need more than just subsidised fares. But, for a lot of people - not everyone - the service is probably good enough for them already. It's just too expensive.

Take Swindon for example. If there were some special 'commuter' train passes available which allowed travel on a limited number of trains (not matching everyone's working hours but a lot of people), and those passes were £300 a month and included Zone 1 (at least) travel, then that would suit a lot of people and they could make it work for them. The passes would be sold, say, monthly or weekly, and on an app with photo ID. 

Going more general, as in my example above, it doesn't have to be all public transport fares that are subsidised. It could be a crafted offering suitable for those who live in (e.g.) Swindon but work in London. And, not suitable for those who would try and bypass normal fares. That would keep the cost of the subsidy down, while allowing people to more feasibly move further away from London to be able to buy a house. 

Note that I don't think that any scheme will work for all workers in London - there are always going to be exceptions. But, that doesn't mean that a solution that would help many people should not be put into place.

Note also that I support more affordable public transport for all. But, the above is a compromise between what I would like and what might actually happen in the future. 

Returning more to the topic of the thread, I checked out house prices in Milton Keynes and they are cheaper than I thought there would be. There are limited tickets from MK to London at 6 pounds something a journey, but a monthly train pass is £583, which puts an upper limit on travel. Not the best situation, but it's a place where people can buy a family home for a more reasonable price and commuting to London is not too long (one hour to Victoria) or ruinously expensive. 

Thus subsidising Swindon/Milton Keynes or wherever to become dormitories for London workers and increasing the capacity needed on transport lines.

Balancing where there is housing and where there are jobs would reduce the total amount of transport needed which seems desirable in itself - for time spent, congestion, cost (whoever is paying) and environment... 

Swindon/Milton Keynes are just examples. Any such policy would likely be rolled out across many cities. I mainly pointed out Milton Keynes as it may be a useful option for the OP. 

Spreading jobs further out around the country, e.g. as the BBC did, would help as well. But, these are not either-or options. Both can be done. If at some point in the future jobs of equal pay are spread around the country then there would no longer be a need to help people commute. But, at present, there is. 

elsien

Where I am in a largish town the public transport, particularly the bus service, is appalling. 

It used to take me 2 hours to get home from work at 10pm for a 14 mile journey, involving 2 buses and a wait at an isolated bus station. I wouldn't be able to do that job at all now as the buses no longer run at night or on weekends (I was a shift worker.) 
It is not possible to get to a 9-5 job in any of the nearby towns by bus:  by train you can get to the nearest city but going to the town 7 miles away would involve a change of train and long gaps in the connection. Some local villages and towns you just can't get to at all.

It would be more understandable if we were a village but this is a town of about 90,000 people. I don't think people and policy makers who live in cities really have any clue as to how difficult is it. It's not the cost, it's that the services don't exist. 

RHemmings

elsien said:

Where I am in a largish town the public transport, particularly the bus service, is appalling. 

It used to take me 2 hours to get home from work at 10pm for a 14 mile journey, involving 2 buses and a wait at an isolated bus station. I wouldn't be able to do that job at all now as the buses no longer run at night or on weekends (I was a shift worker.) 
It is not possible to get to a 9-5 job in any of the nearby towns by bus:  by train you can get to the nearest city but going to the town 7 miles away would involve a change of train and long gaps in the connection. Some local villages and towns you just can't get to at all.

It would be more understandable if we were a village but this is a town of about 90,000 people. I don't think people and policy makers who live in cities really have any clue as to how difficult is it. It's not the cost, it's that the services don't exist. 

This is a different problem from the OPs, as they are in London. In all the places I've lived in in London, the transport was good and I could get from here to there easily.

However, you indirectly make the point that if someone moves to a satellite town, that they have to have good transport to a station into London. And this will constrain choice of house. Adding an hour onto the trip to London just getting to the satellite city train station is going to make the trip at least very difficult. 

There are a number of nice villages outside my city where the environment is nice and there are reasonably priced houses. But, public transport is very limited. As is shopping. A car is needed and to commute to another city would rely on having somewhere to park the car. Doesn't really work. 

lincroft1710

RHemmings said:

sheramber said:

Herzlos said:

theoretica said:

The question in my mind, is if public transport were subsidised - who would actually benefit?

Everyone would, basically.

People who could take public transport would, which would in turn mean less traffic, less cars parked in destinations, less fumes, less accidents, less wear and tear on roads, etc.

Leisure destinations would see more footfall as people can more easily hop on a train into a city to go shopping. Businesses nearby would see more footfall as people walk past rather than drive past.

Commuters would spend less on the commute and have more money to spend at the destination.

Think of what we could do with all the space currently dedicated to car parking, if we were to reduce the demand sufficiently. More green space, more parks, more leisure space, more open air dining, etc.

For the most part, cars suck especially for single occupants. 1500+kg blocks of metal and plastic, burning fuel to move ~75kg of person about. Just seems kind of wasteful.

Who *doesn't* benefit from subsidized public transport?

You  assume public transport goes direct from A to B which is not  necessarlly the case,

For example
When I was working  the bus took 45 minutes minimum to travel from my town to the office town, plus waiting for the  time walking to the bus stop, waiting for the bus , and walking from the bus station to the office.

The same reversed for the homeward journey. in all weathers.

Travelling by car I could be sitting at my desk 20 minutes after leaving the house.

I could do a supermarket weekly shop on the way hime, loading the bags into the car and bringing them to my house.

i couldn't carry several bags of shopping on a bus and then carry from the bus stop to my house.

I currently have a bus pass but the buses are not convenient for where I want to go or when. 

it needs more than subsides fares.

  

Returning more to the topic of the thread, I checked out house prices in Milton Keynes and they are cheaper than I thought there would be. There are limited tickets from MK to London at 6 pounds something a journey, but a monthly train pass is £583, which puts an upper limit on travel. Not the best situation, but it's a place where people can buy a family home for a more reasonable price and commuting to London is not too long (one hour to Victoria) or ruinously expensive. 

I had to have a laugh when you mentioned MK.


MK was designed in the 1960s to take people from London and provide both housing AND jobs for them. It was also purposely planned around the car, So commuting into London defeats the object of the place, but it clearly happens.

Agusya

[Deleted User] said:

Hi there,

I am a 35yo male from the UK. I’ve lived in houseshares in London for most of my adult life. I recently moved home because I became tired of living out of a bedroom in a rental home and rent prices kept increasing. 

I feel far too old to be at home but I don’t know where else to turn. I earn £40k a year and have £30k savings. I don’t earn enough to buy a property and I don’t earn enough to rent a one bed property. I feel lost and don’t know where to turn. My family say “just wait and something will come along”. I know it won’t, as things only get harder in this country. 

My life is on hold because I feel unable to start new relationships while living with my parents. It keeps me in a state of depression and disenchantment. 

What am I supposed to do? I’m genuinely at the end of my tether. I feel there’s no options at all for me to live like a professional adult. 

Move somewhere else in Uk where you will be able to buy a house