Cars, cars, cars...

Pross

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Or vice versa, the problem moving housing where the jobs are is that it is harder to find places to build on any kind of scale in those areas.

It's not just travel for work that's an issue though, buses between towns with populations of 15,000 plus stop at around 7pm in these parts. When I was working in an office I would try to use public transport whenever possible although it usually involved using the car for part of the journey to make the journey time sensible. However, if I want to go to a training session with my running club or get to choir rehearsal then public transport isn't an option (I sometimes run to running club for additional training but for choir practice the car is the only option). A night out requires a taxi journey, the last train from Cardiff to Newport is around midnight and the last bus from Newport to where I live is around 10pm.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

lol if we could "build jobs" wherever we wanted, the world would be very very different place. That sounds very Truss-like.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

Thank you, comrade. So that's agreed we will allocate 10,000 employment contracts to Tyneside. The ministry will be in touch later to allocate roles to these contracts.

More seriously, development (housing and commercial property) has always followed employment, not the other way around.

photonic69

Not enough affordable houses or the wrong mindset about home ownership.

Where I live the average cost of a house is 17-20 x the average salary. Most people who work in the city cannot afford to live here so travel from outlying towns 10-20 miles away. Public transport is being cut. It was rubbish. It is now beyond rubbish. It would be a 2 hour journey for some people each way to earn a meagre wage. Cars are the only affordable and realistic option. Where they live there are no jobs. Industry is non-existant. What few local jobs are probably already taken.
New housing estates are being built. In places that are not served by rail or even bus routes. In my road in immediate surrounds, I cycle to and from work about 5 miles EW. My wife cycles to work when she's not WFH - a 26 mile round trip. Another guy up the road has got a basic eBike to cycle to work (same palce as me). Another guy works away and uses his car daily. His wife works 3 miles away and drives daily. Another neighbour works 9 miles away and has 2 cars and a van and lives on his own. Most of the other people I see come and go in cars every morning. Most drive about 5 miles or less. All the local schools have kids travelling from up to 12-15 miles away. No free transport for them, so parent taxis all round. Even local kids have lifts. Mine never have.

Maybe the answer is to have a more mobile population. Get rid of the notion that "everyman's home is his castle". Have less home ownership and more rental. Make it easier for people to move to where there are jobs and better transport. Make houses of a standard fit for purpose and of similar quality. Make it attractive for people to move around instead of being fixed. It would take generations and need some heavy investment, but maybe less so than subsidising failing public transport networks and more road building.

Maybe we should be "more communist"? Just an idea.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

So this is not an issue?

"This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs."

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

So this is not an issue?

"This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs."

I agree that part of travel efficiency is having people live nearer their jobs, which is presumably the biggest burden on transport.

For that you need looser regulation on housing in order to be able to build where the jobs are. Things like greenbelts etc force people further out away from where the work is, but in general, it seems increadibly difficult to build houses near where people get paid.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

lol if we could "build jobs" wherever we wanted, the world would be very very different place. That sounds very Truss-like.

So you expect the country to completely change the way they are prepared to travel but suggesting changing the way the country works is laughable?

rick_chasey

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

lol if we could "build jobs" wherever we wanted, the world would be very very different place. That sounds very Truss-like.

So you expect the country to completely change the way they are prepared to travel but suggesting changing the way the country works is laughable?

It's not so much how the country works as how any society works. People follow jobs, not the other way around. That's why cities exist. Else we'd all spread out and have loads of land.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

So this is not an issue?

"This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs."

I agree that part of travel efficiency is having people live nearer their jobs, which is presumably the biggest burden on transport.

For that you need looser regulation on housing in order to be able to build where the jobs are. Things like greenbelts etc force people further out away from where the work is, but in general, it seems increadibly difficult to build houses near where people get paid.

Are you being deliberately blind to my point?
The houses already exist near the jobs. It's people in jobs in the wrong towns.

Stevo_666

focuszing723 said:

Meh, WTF. Here's a Rimac Nevera for a couple of million quid.

Way more interesting than some philosophical debate about public transport. And more on topic as this is a thread about cars after all.

And for those without a couple of million burning a hole in their pockets, here's something that's great fun but much more affordable:


https://evo.co.uk/peugeot/peugeot-205-gti/205366/tolman-peugeot-205-gti-2022-review

I used to have 205gti, cracking fun.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

lol if we could "build jobs" wherever we wanted, the world would be very very different place. That sounds very Truss-like.

So you expect the country to completely change the way they are prepared to travel but suggesting changing the way the country works is laughable?

It's not so much how the country works as how any society works. People follow jobs, not the other way around. That's why cities exist. Else we'd all spread out and have loads of land.

I would argue that jobs used to be more widely spread though. The idea of commuter towns is relatively recent and probably reflects the decline in heavy industry. For example, in the 1970s you wouldn't have had many people commuting to jobs in Cardiff from the Rhondda Valley as people living in the Rhondda were generally working in local industry (mainly mining). It ties in with the whole Norman Tebbitt "get on your bike and look for work" thing (ironically given this discussion!) in the 1980s. Poor planning at the time meant that replacement employment such as light industrial units, retail parks and even offices were built in edge of town / out of town locations with poor or non-existent public transport and commutting by car became the default.

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

Meh, WTF. Here's a Rimac Nevera for a couple of million quid.

Way more interesting than some philosophical debate about public transport. And more on topic as this is a thread about cars after all.

And for those without a couple of million burning a hole in their pockets, here's something that's great fun but much more affordable:


https://evo.co.uk/peugeot/peugeot-205-gti/205366/tolman-peugeot-205-gti-2022-review

I used to have 205gti, cracking fun.

They look so small now. That Rimac really is an impressive piece of engineering, all new from the ground up by a new company based in a country with little history of car production

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

So this is not an issue?

"This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs."

I agree that part of travel efficiency is having people live nearer their jobs, which is presumably the biggest burden on transport.

For that you need looser regulation on housing in order to be able to build where the jobs are. Things like greenbelts etc force people further out away from where the work is, but in general, it seems increadibly difficult to build houses near where people get paid.

Are you being deliberately blind to my point?
The houses already exist near the jobs. It's people in jobs in the wrong towns.

Sorry, I thought it was assumed that often the reason people don't live where they work is because of affordability which is the consequence of building restrictions.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

Thank you, comrade. So that's agreed we will allocate 10,000 employment contracts to Tyneside. The ministry will be in touch later to allocate roles to these contracts.

More seriously, development (housing and commercial property) has always followed employment, not the other way around.

How is thst working out?

Its an age old problem, but providing incentives for businesses to locate in different regions is a known thing.

Focusing solely on making London and the SE less awful or even more connected from even further away seems like being in a hole and frantically digging to me.

Any one been to Manchester recently? Seems to be working there.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

So this is not an issue?

"This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs."

I agree that part of travel efficiency is having people live nearer their jobs, which is presumably the biggest burden on transport.

For that you need looser regulation on housing in order to be able to build where the jobs are. Things like greenbelts etc force people further out away from where the work is, but in general, it seems increadibly difficult to build houses near where people get paid.

Are you being deliberately blind to my point?
The houses already exist near the jobs. It's people in jobs in the wrong towns.

Sorry, I thought it was assumed that often the reason people don't live where they work is because of affordability which is the consequence of building restrictions.

Hypothetical situation to illustrate my point.
There will be secretaries living in Derby travelling to work in Leicester while there are secretaries living in Leicester travelling to work in Derby. Some kind of job swap and everybody wins.

rick_chasey

The focus on London is because London’s economy is the only one that actually grew in the last 30 years.

That’s why.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

The focus on London is because London’s economy is the only one that actually grew in the last 30 years.

That’s why.

No.
The why is answered by investment. No investment, no growth.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

So this is not an issue?

"This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs."

I agree that part of travel efficiency is having people live nearer their jobs, which is presumably the biggest burden on transport.

For that you need looser regulation on housing in order to be able to build where the jobs are. Things like greenbelts etc force people further out away from where the work is, but in general, it seems increadibly difficult to build houses near where people get paid.

Are you being deliberately blind to my point?
The houses already exist near the jobs. It's people in jobs in the wrong towns.

Sorry, I thought it was assumed that often the reason people don't live where they work is because of affordability which is the consequence of building restrictions.

Hypothetical situation to illustrate my point.
There will be secretaries living in Derby travelling to work in Leicester while there are secretaries living in Leicester travelling to work in Derby. Some kind of job swap and everybody wins.

I would be flabbergasted if the amount of instances like that were statically significant.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

So this is not an issue?

"This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs."

I agree that part of travel efficiency is having people live nearer their jobs, which is presumably the biggest burden on transport.

For that you need looser regulation on housing in order to be able to build where the jobs are. Things like greenbelts etc force people further out away from where the work is, but in general, it seems increadibly difficult to build houses near where people get paid.

Are you being deliberately blind to my point?
The houses already exist near the jobs. It's people in jobs in the wrong towns.

Sorry, I thought it was assumed that often the reason people don't live where they work is because of affordability which is the consequence of building restrictions.

Hypothetical situation to illustrate my point.
There will be secretaries living in Derby travelling to work in Leicester while there are secretaries living in Leicester travelling to work in Derby. Some kind of job swap and everybody wins.

I would be flabbergasted if the amount of instances like that were statically significant.

Look at any motorway between major towns during rush hour. Busy in both directions mostly with single drivers. I am suggesting a lot of them going in opposite directions are doing similar jobs.

photonic69

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

So this is not an issue?

"This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs."

I agree that part of travel efficiency is having people live nearer their jobs, which is presumably the biggest burden on transport.

For that you need looser regulation on housing in order to be able to build where the jobs are. Things like greenbelts etc force people further out away from where the work is, but in general, it seems increadibly difficult to build houses near where people get paid.

Are you being deliberately blind to my point?
The houses already exist near the jobs. It's people in jobs in the wrong towns.

Sorry, I thought it was assumed that often the reason people don't live where they work is because of affordability which is the consequence of building restrictions.

Hypothetical situation to illustrate my point.
There will be secretaries living in Derby travelling to work in Leicester while there are secretaries living in Leicester travelling to work in Derby. Some kind of job swap and everybody wins.

I would be flabbergasted if the amount of instances like that were statically significant.

Look at any motorway between major towns during rush hour. Busy in both directions mostly with single drivers. I am suggesting a lot of them going in opposite directions are doing similar jobs.

And this is with quite a few people WFH as well. I recon the traffic is now worse that pre-pandemic levels. It's pretty insane.
Chatting to a guy at work - he lives in Swindon and wanted to take his wife and two young kids to London to the Natural History Museum over the half term week for a day out. It would have cost him over £200 to travel at a sensible time of day to make it worthwhile. That's just nuts. They didn't go in the end.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

Meh, WTF. Here's a Rimac Nevera for a couple of million quid.

Way more interesting than some philosophical debate about public transport. And more on topic as this is a thread about cars after all.

And for those without a couple of million burning a hole in their pockets, here's something that's great fun but much more affordable:


https://evo.co.uk/peugeot/peugeot-205-gti/205366/tolman-peugeot-205-gti-2022-review

I used to have 205gti, cracking fun.

They look so small now. That Rimac really is an impressive piece of engineering, all new from the ground up by a new company based in a country with little history of car production

They were small (and light - seemed to be made from kit-kat wrappers and sticky back plastic). I guess the latest bloatmobiles make them look even smaller by comparison.

Agree on the Rimac, pity I can't afford one...

Wheelspinner

rick_chasey said:

Sorry, I thought it was assumed that often the reason people don't live where they work is because of affordability which is the consequence of building restrictions.

Rubbish. Any restrictions - zoning as industrial for example - are more often to help businesses be economically functional. As soon as you start mixing residential with industrial, you have a requirement for all the other stuff - schools, shops, recreation etc. All *that* does is chew up space and make it more expensive for everyone. If the cost of the premises rises for many industrial places, they are simply not viable (i.e. profitable) these days. And, loads of industrial areas are operational 24 hours a day, simply because they have to be, or business will fail. Who wants to live in that kind of environment anyway?

Then if you do let people move in and start living there near the industrial places, the first thing they do is complain about noise/traffic/pollution from the industry they moved in next to, and want it controlled. See any large city worldwide for examples of the "gentrification" of working class inner-city suburbs.

People (prefer to) live where they have access to things they want or need to do that are NOT work.

For a surprising number of people (not any you deal with obvs) the actual job they have is irrelevant. What it is, who for, and to some manageable extent where it is are entirely secondary to the fact that they get paid - hopefully enough left over - to enable them to just live a life away from work.

Dorset_Boy

If you haven't done so already, watch the Top Gear review of the Rimac ...... WOW!

Dorset_Boy

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

So this is not an issue?

"This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs."

I agree that part of travel efficiency is having people live nearer their jobs, which is presumably the biggest burden on transport.

For that you need looser regulation on housing in order to be able to build where the jobs are. Things like greenbelts etc force people further out away from where the work is, but in general, it seems increadibly difficult to build houses near where people get paid.

Are you being deliberately blind to my point?
The houses already exist near the jobs. It's people in jobs in the wrong towns.

Sorry, I thought it was assumed that often the reason people don't live where they work is because of affordability which is the consequence of building restrictions.

Hypothetical situation to illustrate my point.
There will be secretaries living in Derby travelling to work in Leicester while there are secretaries living in Leicester travelling to work in Derby. Some kind of job swap and everybody wins.

I would be flabbergasted if the amount of instances like that were statically significant.

Look at any motorway between major towns during rush hour. Busy in both directions mostly with single drivers. I am suggesting a lot of them going in opposite directions are doing similar jobs.

I think that is probably also typical between 'market' towns.
however, many people are happy with their employer and would be highly averse to being forced to go off to a new one, even if it then resulted in no commute.

Stevo_666

Dorset_Boy said:

If you haven't done so already, watch the Top Gear review of the Rimac ...... WOW!

Makes a Lambo Aventador SVJ look like it's towing a caravan

pblakeney

Dorset_Boy said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

So this is not an issue?

"This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs."

I agree that part of travel efficiency is having people live nearer their jobs, which is presumably the biggest burden on transport.

For that you need looser regulation on housing in order to be able to build where the jobs are. Things like greenbelts etc force people further out away from where the work is, but in general, it seems increadibly difficult to build houses near where people get paid.

Are you being deliberately blind to my point?
The houses already exist near the jobs. It's people in jobs in the wrong towns.

Sorry, I thought it was assumed that often the reason people don't live where they work is because of affordability which is the consequence of building restrictions.

Hypothetical situation to illustrate my point.
There will be secretaries living in Derby travelling to work in Leicester while there are secretaries living in Leicester travelling to work in Derby. Some kind of job swap and everybody wins.

I would be flabbergasted if the amount of instances like that were statically significant.

Look at any motorway between major towns during rush hour. Busy in both directions mostly with single drivers. I am suggesting a lot of them going in opposite directions are doing similar jobs.

I think that is probably also typical between 'market' towns.
however, many people are happy with their employer and would be highly averse to being forced to go off to a new one, even if it then resulted in no commute.

True. But we are discussing fundamental changes in how we live in order to save the planet. A new employer is way down on the list of inconveniences.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

Thank you, comrade. So that's agreed we will allocate 10,000 employment contracts to Tyneside. The ministry will be in touch later to allocate roles to these contracts.

More seriously, development (housing and commercial property) has always followed employment, not the other way around.

How is thst working out?

Its an age old problem, but providing incentives for businesses to locate in different regions is a known thing.

Focusing solely on making London and the SE less awful or even more connected from even further away seems like being in a hole and frantically digging to me.

Any one been to Manchester recently? Seems to be working there.

London and the SE aren't awful. They're great. If you are going to build an economy around Finance and other services, it's likely to be focused around major urban centres. This will sound harsh but insisting unconnected industries relocate to places that only exist because of historic presence of raw materials is a hiding to nothing. Let them go the way of the abandoned medieval villages and start afresh where the work is.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

Thank you, comrade. So that's agreed we will allocate 10,000 employment contracts to Tyneside. The ministry will be in touch later to allocate roles to these contracts.

More seriously, development (housing and commercial property) has always followed employment, not the other way around.

How is thst working out?

Its an age old problem, but providing incentives for businesses to locate in different regions is a known thing.

Focusing solely on making London and the SE less awful or even more connected from even further away seems like being in a hole and frantically digging to me.

Any one been to Manchester recently? Seems to be working there.

London and the SE aren't awful. They're great. If you are going to build an economy around Finance and other services, it's likely to be focused around major urban centres. This will sound harsh but insisting unconnected industries relocate to places that only exist because of historic presence of raw materials is a hiding to nothing. Let them go the way of the abandoned medieval villages and start afresh where the work is.

No, I think you'll find London and the SE really are awful, you know. Just try getting around in a car. Or on a bike. Or on public transport.

You said "centres" i.e. plural. Was that by accident, or intentional? Because I'm going to stick my neck out and categorise Manchester as an urban centre. Is it better that the economic growth in Manchester in recent years (which has actually occurred, despite what RC says) took place in that city, or would it have been better if it had all been in London? Would it have been able to happen in London at all? Or would more of it had happened if it had taken place in London?

Genuinely interested.

veronese68

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

Meh, WTF. Here's a Rimac Nevera for a couple of million quid.

Way more interesting than some philosophical debate about public transport. And more on topic as this is a thread about cars after all.

And for those without a couple of million burning a hole in their pockets, here's something that's great fun but much more affordable:


https://evo.co.uk/peugeot/peugeot-205-gti/205366/tolman-peugeot-205-gti-2022-review

I used to have 205gti, cracking fun.

They look so small now.

That bloke in the picture looks like he has an enormous head, probably because our expectation of car size is now skewed.

pblakeney

veronese68 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

Meh, WTF. Here's a Rimac Nevera for a couple of million quid.

Way more interesting than some philosophical debate about public transport. And more on topic as this is a thread about cars after all.

And for those without a couple of million burning a hole in their pockets, here's something that's great fun but much more affordable:


https://evo.co.uk/peugeot/peugeot-205-gti/205366/tolman-peugeot-205-gti-2022-review

I used to have 205gti, cracking fun.

They look so small now.

That bloke in the picture looks like he has an enormous head, probably because our expectation of car size is now skewed.

Tried getting in an original Mini recently?
I was shocked at how small they are. Way different from my memories.