Discussion
Why the h*ll should motorists pay for reduced rail fares.
Many of us don't need to travel by rail to work as we work locally to our homes (in my case 50 yards).
Many of these commuters have chosen to move away from their places of work for "a better lifestyle" so why should those of us that live near our work subsidise their "better lifestyle".
If they want the bloated salary that work in the smokes pays then let them spend it on travelling to work. It doesn't matter if the journey is 5 miles or 100 miles. It is their choice to live that far from their employment.
As you can tell, this make my blood boil.
Many of us don't need to travel by rail to work as we work locally to our homes (in my case 50 yards).
Many of these commuters have chosen to move away from their places of work for "a better lifestyle" so why should those of us that live near our work subsidise their "better lifestyle".
If they want the bloated salary that work in the smokes pays then let them spend it on travelling to work. It doesn't matter if the journey is 5 miles or 100 miles. It is their choice to live that far from their employment.
As you can tell, this make my blood boil.
I seem to have caused a bit of a stir with my original post.
If you go back 200 years people lived within walking distance of their employment. Then came the railways and people moved into the commuter belt/suburbs. Following WW2 more workers moved further from the centres of employment, until now when some live more than 100 miles from their work.
I still fail to understand why those that commute by train feel that their journey to work should be subsidised by others. Each person has their own reasons for not living close to their employment but the reason (if you are honest) is normally a personal/family lifestyle choice. It's not because you can't find or afford a home closer to your employment. You can walk or cycle a long way in the time it takes to commute by train!
I may have this point wrong but I seem to remember a figure of only 20% of all taxes raised from the motorist are spent on our roads. Road users actually subsidise pensions, hospitals railways, etc, etc and not non-drivers subsidising us.
If you go back 200 years people lived within walking distance of their employment. Then came the railways and people moved into the commuter belt/suburbs. Following WW2 more workers moved further from the centres of employment, until now when some live more than 100 miles from their work.
I still fail to understand why those that commute by train feel that their journey to work should be subsidised by others. Each person has their own reasons for not living close to their employment but the reason (if you are honest) is normally a personal/family lifestyle choice. It's not because you can't find or afford a home closer to your employment. You can walk or cycle a long way in the time it takes to commute by train!
I may have this point wrong but I seem to remember a figure of only 20% of all taxes raised from the motorist are spent on our roads. Road users actually subsidise pensions, hospitals railways, etc, etc and not non-drivers subsidising us.
youngsyr said:
700,000 people commute into London by train each day (http://www.economist.com/node/13047681), where exactly are you going to house all of those people if they decide they want to walk to work?
What do you think it would do to already booming house prices in central london?
If they all decide to live further than the 3 miles you can walk in an hour from central London, bust still not use cars or the train, how are you going to cater for an additional 700,000 bicycles on the road?
For many people, commuting by train is simply not a choice. They either do that, or find another career.
If you look logically at this it is cause and effect.What do you think it would do to already booming house prices in central london?
If they all decide to live further than the 3 miles you can walk in an hour from central London, bust still not use cars or the train, how are you going to cater for an additional 700,000 bicycles on the road?
For many people, commuting by train is simply not a choice. They either do that, or find another career.
If people could not buy or afford houses in London, and commuting costs (paying the unsubsidised fare) made traveling too costly, then businesses would have to relocate to other parts of the country where their labour force could live closer to their employment.
My local village has a large number of London commuters catching the train for a days work and the majority are clearly very well paid as their lifestyle bares witness too. I suspect the cost of an unsubsidised rail fare will not greatly affect them.
I should point out that I enjoy an above average income and live a similar lifestyle (without the commute) so this is not a case of jealousy.
Public transport is not an option for most of my journeys (business or pleasure) simply because it takes too long. By car I can get into the local town in 10 mins, get what I need and back home in about 40 mins. If I use buses and/or trains the trip would take 2 hours minimum.
Nobody subsidises my travel (unless it's the one journey every 4 years I make by train!!!) so why should I subsidise my (clearly) well off neighbours?
youngsyr said:
London is a world leading trade and financing centre, due to several reasons, but two of the main factors are convenience for foreign investors/businessmen and a worldwide reputation for providing professional and reliable services.
If the cost of labour increases significantly in London, that price increase in doing business here could well push that trade to other major trade centres such as Paris/Frankfurt/New York, I can't see many Asian businessmen making the trip from Beijing to Oxford, Swindon or Guildford!
As for you not wanting to subsidise others' travel, it's part of living in a developed, liberal country. If you only want to put in what you take out, let's hope you never need serious/prolonged medical treatment - you might find that your self-supporting idealism quickly bankrupts you.
So the 8.17m who live in London and the 700,000 that commute all work in the financial sector. I think not! I know some are needed to clean the offices and produce the Latte. If the cost of labour increases significantly in London, that price increase in doing business here could well push that trade to other major trade centres such as Paris/Frankfurt/New York, I can't see many Asian businessmen making the trip from Beijing to Oxford, Swindon or Guildford!
As for you not wanting to subsidise others' travel, it's part of living in a developed, liberal country. If you only want to put in what you take out, let's hope you never need serious/prolonged medical treatment - you might find that your self-supporting idealism quickly bankrupts you.
Many businesses don't need to be in London especially if the UK got it's ass into gear and rolled out 100mb broadband.
Staff like the cachet of "working in the city" but many of them don't "need" to be there. They could be in Milton Keynes, Birmingham or, heaven forbid, Newcastle.
Also, believe it or not there are quite a few unemployed people living in London. Why???????????
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff