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

RHemmings

lincroft1710 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.

  

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.

I haven't really been to MK much except for work which was so long ago I can't remember, a couple of trips to Bletchley Park, and frequently on the coach to London as it stops there. I was surprised at the relatively reasonable prices of the houses I saw there. I was guessing that commuting would be good time-wise because it's not too far to London from here (Leicester) and MK is a fair bit closer. It could be that the cheaper houses I saw are in parts where it's far from the main train station, but price wise the costs of the tickets including monthly tickets and housing definitely makes it into an option. I don't know much about daily life in MK, but wildly guess that if the OP found Norwich a bit isolating 

When I lived in London and worked in Harrow a colleague of mine bought a house in Leighton Buzzard and commuted in by car. Looking at the map, I can see how that works. EDIT: Oh, and 36 minutes on the train from LB to Harrow. Just idly wondering but I wonder how much houses are there. EDIT: More expensive than around my way, but a lot cheaper than London. Season train tickets are more expensive than I expected. 

When talking about MK, I keep getting reminded of that song where the protagonist is finding living on Mars uncomfortable, and she wishes she was back in Milton Keynes. 

lincroft1710

RHemmings said:

lincroft1710 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.

  

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.

I haven't really been to MK much except for work which was so long ago I can't remember, a couple of trips to Bletchley Park, and frequently on the coach to London as it stops there. I was surprised at the relatively reasonable prices of the houses I saw there. I was guessing that commuting would be good time-wise because it's not too far to London from here (Leicester) and MK is a fair bit closer. It could be that the cheaper houses I saw are in parts where it's far from the main train station, but price wise the costs of the tickets including monthly tickets and housing definitely makes it into an option. I don't know much about daily life in MK, but wildly guess that if the OP found Norwich a bit isolating 

When I lived in London and worked in Harrow a colleague of mine bought a house in Leighton Buzzard and commuted in by car. Looking at the map, I can see how that works. EDIT: Oh, and 36 minutes on the train from LB to Harrow. Just idly wondering but I wonder how much houses are there. EDIT: More expensive than around my way, but a lot cheaper than London. Season train tickets are more expensive than I expected. 

When talking about MK, I keep getting reminded of that song where the protagonist is finding living on Mars uncomfortable, and she wishes she was back in Milton Keynes. 

MK has good shopping and a good market, but it sprawls, lots of "villages" with their own small shopping centres. Having driven through MK on many occasions and similarly been there on the bus, it always seems a long time to get anywhere, even if you're constantly moving, only having to slow/stop for the interminable roundabouts. Housing isn't cheap (except relatively in some of the less desirable areas), but is cheaper than Hertfordshire. But unless you want a lengthy journey to the station, you are limited in the areas you can live. The coach station is worse, it is right on the eastern edge of the city.


That house in Lochy Drive Linslade seems expensive to me. It is right on the NW edge of LB on a large 1980s/90s built private estate, a reasonable but walkable distance from the station. LB is (or seemed to be) a pleasant market town (a relative had a takeaway business until the arrival of McDonalds made it unprofitable), Linslade is the "posh" end of LB and prices tend to be slightly higher than LB itself/ historically Linslade was in Bucks but some years ago was merged in with LB and was moved into Beds.

PixelPound

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?

In Sheffield in the 80's they subsidised buses so journeys were 5p or 10p, and 2p for kids. It kept a lot of cars off the road. However the wealthy who didn't use public transport thought it unfair they had high council tax to subsidise it, so campaigned via their local Tory MP to get it changed. The deregulation bill came in and so there was a hike in prices, lots of buses going to the city centre and less elsewhere and everyone took to their cars.

Now not sure how many would go to public transport, no matter the subsidy. Often you have to get multiple buses to get to your destination and it can take well over an hour to do what can be done in under 15 mins in a car.

Maybe a subsidised communal taxi service - takes you to your destination but might pick-up/drop-off others on the way.

PixelPound

lincroft1710 said:

wildbilljones said:

lincroft1710 said:

wildbilljones said:

lincroft1710 said:

wildbilljones said:

lincroft1710 said:

wildbilljones said:

Purbeck14 said:

A couple on 'Location, location, location' last night put their requirements into AI (Chatgpt?) and it produced  the 'perfect location' for them, Phil found them a house there. Of course it does help when you have 700K! Might be an interesting little experiment to try though. 

EDIT as I've just read a bit of your previous thread, where you state  your type of work and really London being where that  work is but that you didn't feel able or willing to pay commuting costs too far out. So really travelling  a distance to continue working in London doesn't seem feasible for you? Which is fair enough. 

I think the UK isn’t really the right place for long commutes. I know some people can accept paying 6-10k a year just on getting to their office but I find that to be unethical and defeating the purpose of public transport. 

. 

Sorry, but how can people spending £6K - £10K on getting to their office be "unethical and defeating the purpose of public transport"?? Do you think these people should commute by car and cause even more traffic congestion? Go to St Albans on any weekday before 9.00 am and see how many people get on the London trains. Imagine all those people driving into London.

Because it's extortionate. It doesn't happen in other countries because they wouldn't accept it. I currently live just outside London and it costs me 560GBP a month to go into the office (If i go in five days a week). 

Public transport should be affordable or free. 

What do you consider affordable? How many countries have free public transport other than over very short distances? 


How would you finance free public transport for everybody? Where would the money come from, because you are talking billions of pounds annually? Why should ordinary taxpayers subsidise commuters, because that is what would happen. As I said in a previous post, pensioner bus passes benefits are being eroded, for example you have to pay one pound if you travel before 9.30 am on the bus.  


Don't get me wrong! Free public transport is a fantastic idea in theory, but in practice about as likely to happen as your next door neighbour being an advance member of a party of invading Martians!


Finally as you are so passionate about this, have you written to your MP to elicit their views on the matter?

If you'r going to pretend that it's reasonable for people to have to pay over 400 a month to get to work in central London from Hemel Hempstead, then you're welcome to do so. I've no interest in having a debate about it. 

There are hundreds of thousands of people who commute to London by train daily from Beds, Bucks, Cambs, Essex, Herts, Kent, Surrey, Sussex. If the fares are so unreasonable then why haven't they started petitions demanding lower fares.


As I see it you have a choice in no particular order


1. Stay in London with parents or house share


2. Buy/rent within commutable distance of London, but pay (in your opinion) unreasonable fares


3. Move to a different part of the country where you can find  suitable work, afford to buy/rent and do not have unreasonable commuting cost


4. Find a job which pays you enough to buy/rent in London

Obviously petitions have been started over fare prices. I find it hard to believe you can live in this country and not be aware of the huge discontent over travel costs. The fact that people pay these prices isn't saying much.

Thanks for the advice. I agree that these are the options. 

Probably because I have either driven or walked to work it hasn't affected me personally. But I have seen TV interviews with commuters when rail fare increases are announced. The commuters moan but seem just to accept it, they don't en masse stop using the trains or even if they do start petitions, they don't appear to be successful.

Usually because jobs outside London won't pay the same and they won't get accommodation in London for the same price they have got outside. I wonder if remote working has made this less of a problem? If you can work remotely so that instead of commuting 5 days a week, you do 1 or 2, then the amounts saved can be quite a bit.

KxMx

nic_c 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?

In Sheffield in the 80's they subsidised buses so journeys were 5p or 10p, and 2p for kids. It kept a lot of cars off the road. However the wealthy who didn't use public transport thought it unfair they had high council tax to subsidise it, so campaigned via their local Tory MP to get it changed. The deregulation bill came in and so there was a hike in prices, lots of buses going to the city centre and less elsewhere and everyone took to their cars.

Now not sure how many would go to public transport, no matter the subsidy. Often you have to get multiple buses to get to your destination and it can take well over an hour to do what can be done in under 15 mins in a car.

Maybe a subsidised communal taxi service - takes you to your destination but might pick-up/drop-off others on the way.

As someone who relies on buses full time, I agree that often you have to get multiple buses. 

However that is normal to me without a car, what I find strange is car drivers who drive 1-2 hours to go somewhere with a barely a thought... Yet to them me getting 2 buses is weird!

Added, as a non driver I chose very carefully where to move to last year, the list of businesses and services I can access either by a short walk or one bus (within 15 minutes travel time) is actually quite extensive and includes a mainline rail station, 2 GP surgeries, 4 pharmacies and multiple large supermarkets as well as a cinema and restaurants.

I would never consider rural again unless GP, pharmacy and mainline train station were within a short walk. And that's my minimum I'd also look at taxi + bus availability and nearby food shops (as a single person household it's not economical to food shop fully online given the costs). 

mongoose2009

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?

the people who pay 

in all socialist systems the freeloaders win and the workers pay

its why communism always fails

eventually more people pay nothing outweighs the people who do pay 

and the ponzi collapses

Luke451

lincroft1710 said:

wildbilljones said:

lincroft1710 said:

wildbilljones said:

lincroft1710 said:

wildbilljones said:

Purbeck14 said:

A couple on 'Location, location, location' last night put their requirements into AI (Chatgpt?) and it produced  the 'perfect location' for them, Phil found them a house there. Of course it does help when you have 700K! Might be an interesting little experiment to try though. 

EDIT as I've just read a bit of your previous thread, where you state  your type of work and really London being where that  work is but that you didn't feel able or willing to pay commuting costs too far out. So really travelling  a distance to continue working in London doesn't seem feasible for you? Which is fair enough. 

I think the UK isn’t really the right place for long commutes. I know some people can accept paying 6-10k a year just on getting to their office but I find that to be unethical and defeating the purpose of public transport. 

. 

Sorry, but how can people spending £6K - £10K on getting to their office be "unethical and defeating the purpose of public transport"?? Do you think these people should commute by car and cause even more traffic congestion? Go to St Albans on any weekday before 9.00 am and see how many people get on the London trains. Imagine all those people driving into London.

Because it's extortionate. It doesn't happen in other countries because they wouldn't accept it. I currently live just outside London and it costs me 560GBP a month to go into the office (If i go in five days a week). 

Public transport should be affordable or free. 

What do you consider affordable? How many countries have free public transport other than over very short distances? 


How would you finance free public transport for everybody? Where would the money come from, because you are talking billions of pounds annually? Why should ordinary taxpayers subsidise commuters, because that is what would happen. As I said in a previous post, pensioner bus passes benefits are being eroded, for example you have to pay one pound if you travel before 9.30 am on the bus.  


Don't get me wrong! Free public transport is a fantastic idea in theory, but in practice about as likely to happen as your next door neighbour being an advance member of a party of invading Martians!


Finally as you are so passionate about this, have you written to your MP to elicit their views on the matter?

If you'r going to pretend that it's reasonable for people to have to pay over 400 a month to get to work in central London from Hemel Hempstead, then you're welcome to do so. I've no interest in having a debate about it. 

There are hundreds of thousands of people who commute to London by train daily from Beds, Bucks, Cambs, Essex, Herts, Kent, Surrey, Sussex. If the fares are so unreasonable then why haven't they started petitions demanding lower fares.


As I see it you have a choice in no particular order


1. Stay in London with parents or house share


2. Buy/rent within commutable distance of London, but pay (in your opinion) unreasonable fares


3. Move to a different part of the country where you can find  suitable work, afford to buy/rent and do not have unreasonable commuting cost


4. Find a job which pays you enough to buy/rent in London

Those people are trashing their life, at this point, better to be homeless and slavery free.

Luke451

theoretica said:

The question in my mind, is if public transport were subsidised - who would actually benefit?  If cost of living in or commuting to London fell, I bet employers would take advantage and many salaries would come down as a fair chunk of the argument for needing higher salaries would have gone.  Maybe there would be a brief time when employees felt better off, but I am cynical enough to think it wouldn't last.  Why should employers be subsidised to be based in places people their employees can't afford to live and need long commutes?

If you live in London, you should never be at the bottom of the food chain.

Who lives in London eats up over the skin of other people, so, you're better off staying on top, or close to it, there is no space for low income.

Or you commute every day like an horse and trash your life completely.

So, if you're skilled and quite unique, London can give you something, otherwise it's game over.

Herzlos

mongoose2009 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?

the people who pay 

in all socialist systems the freeloaders win and the workers pay

its why communism always fails

eventually more people pay nothing outweighs the people who do pay 

and the ponzi collapses

The people who pay can also use it and can get the benefits of more people using the buses and not driving.

Some people are dead set against this notion that someone else gets something for free/cheap, even if it benefits the person paying. It's fairly hard to conceptualize but it's often a better idea logically. The money saved by the travellers also goes somewhere (because they probably won't put it into an offshore account), so will be spent, probably locally, boosting the local economy and providing more tax revenue to go into roads, schools, health services, etc. It's entirely possible that the economic value generated by the subsidized public travel exceeds the cost of providing the subsidized travel, and then everyone wins.

From a cynical perspective: for every person that can be encouraged onto a bus, that's one less person in front of my in my commute and one less parking space claimed. Would I pay a few £ a month to knock time off my commute and guarantee parking? Absolutely.

Communism usually fails because of the whole "some are more equal than others" thing where the party favorites get all the good stuff and the common people get screwed. Publicly owned and subsidized transport isn't communism anyway.