Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Cities are the problem. The trend of moving back into cities since the 90s has been shown to be flawed because it locks in train dependence. We need to revert to suburban/small town development which are easy for cars to get around and embrace working from home even more.
Is this the same country that has more number munchers and quango mass that are probably paid a hell of a lot more to do the square root of sod all and keep telling us how broke the country is. It's always broke. They`ll find the money you can be sure.
It'll be a different problem in two years time, and chances are we're taking about an extra 1%, which would likely be recovered by now people paying to use trains.
Only one or the last three years saw rail use lower than in the low point in the 1990's however at the same time road use was also massively down (rush hour was almost no more congested than 2am). In 2021/22 (so year 2 of Covid) it saw more rail use than any year between 1962 and 2002.
Cities are the problem. The trend of moving back into cities since the 90s has been shown to be flawed because it locks in train dependence. We need to revert to suburban/small town development which are easy for cars to get around and embrace working from home even more.
Cities can be higher than 200 dwellings per acre, suburban housing is about 30 per acre and rural villages can be about 15 per acre. Even at 90 for cities and 30 for suburban you'd need three times the land space to accommodate the same number of people.
Your also reduce the numbers walking and cycling (as everything gets that bit more spread out, so the "corner shop" is now likely to be driven to for that pint of milk which is needed).
We were following that strategy for most of the last 100 years. London, Liverpool and Manchester lost huge proportions of their populations from 1930 to 1990.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
But most of America is not like that. They live in small towns or suburbs and get around exclusively by car without too much bother.
Most people live in urban areas, however most of the UK is not urban (for clarification urban is a settlement of over 10,000 people).
If you draw a line from Slough to Little Hampton, once you passed Woking and Guildford there's just an expense of not a lot until you reach the coast.
Follow the M20 through Kent or the M3 through Hampshire, there's not many places along it compared to rural areas with low population numbers. Yes there's some roads which are more urban than this (M6 between the southern end and Stoke on Trent, however even then there's a fair amount of rural areas), although these tend to be fairly limited in number or length.
There's fairly few places where (other than within cities) where you don't encounter significant areas of limited population, even before going and looking at the Highlands of Scotland.
Whilst some love suburban living others love cities whilst others love rural areas.
If course, even if we could build out a suburban paradise, it would take decades to deliver.
One of the issues with suburban living is the low levels of facilities which are often provided.
I live somewhere which grew significantly since the 1980's, there's never been a bank, library, public swimming pool or secondary school (nor are there plans for any), even though in the last census the population was only just shy of 10,000. There's only just now being a second supermarket being built, the first one has never been big enough for the population and was built in the late 1990's.
Indeed, XC needed more capacity in the mid 2000's and it would have likely reduced the level of support that they needed, as they could have increased train lengths without increasing staff costs proportionally. In turn that could have allowed them to offer cheaper tickets prices whilst still covering their costs.
WFH 4 or more days a week actually makes public transport a more cost effective option than car ownership.
Let's say you've got a car that costs £750 for insurance, VED and MOT and servicing. If you are going to the office 250 days a year that's a cost of £3/trip. If you are going 50 days a year that's £15/trip and those costs aren't likely to alter by much.
Whilst you may need a car for other purposes when you're at that sort of level of use those fix costs soon add up.
Obviously that's before you look at other costs, such as fuel or purchasing the car in the first place.
Indeed, whilst cars have a big party to play, they also can't be the (nearly) only way that we get about without it causing significant issues.
The strikes could end though if the government wanted them to end. The fact that they aren't engaging in fixing them means that there's a risk that more support is needed than if the strikes were resolved.
Whilst 5% growth per quarter may be difficult to sustain after a few quarters (bearing in mind that we've had 8.87% between the last two quarters there's data for at least a few more averaging 5% isn't impossible), the point wasn't that it was what would happen, rather to highlight that actually a small amount of growth could deliver pre Covid levels of use within a fairly short timeframe.
Just not having 2 strike days in a month (and often there's more) where there's 60% use results in a 2.27% reduction in rail use. That's before you consider the wider impact from the strikes making people less likely to use rail.
Likewise Avanti, TPE and XC running 60-65% of their pre Covid km of services isn't helping rail be a viable option (even if your connecting TOC is at 95% the fact you can't do the long distance section is going to stop you from using that TOC).
I'm not staying that there can't be any cuts, some will be needed (for instance to allow a more reliable service to be run, as Covid taught us and to make some savings - although these should be justified in the same way that reopenings are, as they could actually cost the government more), rather that it's likely that if we want to see a reduction in the support paid to railways, only making cuts isn't likely to work.
Currently it's hard to tell what the Q3 for 2022/23 will result in, however from the DfT data it's looking fairly promising that there could be more growth over the Q2 data.
In that the average for Q2 from the DfT data was 81.2% of pre Covid use, whilst up to the end of November the average was 83.4%, that alone would be a 3% increase. Whilst that's below 5% that's with ongoing strikes and is using incomplete and approximate data. However is useful to highlight that growth is still the likely outcome, even if it's not as high as it would need to be too get to 2019 levels in the next data year.
Whilst passenger numbers does not equal the same revenue, generally higher passenger numbers does equal higher revenue. As such the closer we get to pre Covid use the closer we get to pre Covid revenue (even if the latter lags behind the former).
Bottom line, with 2009 levels of rail use it would be political suicide to fully close the railways (if we were at 1995 levels it might be possible to push it through, but even then it wasn't viable) as such it comes down to how much support is needed.
Ultimately that comes down to how much income can be generated, if you limit yourself by maintaining the strikes (and if you didn't have NHS strikes as well as a raft of others, it could be that there would be more support for crushing the RMT, but I suspect until several are resolved that's not an option) then your always going to be up against it in creating income. Bottom line, RMT would probably call the strikes off for 1% to 2% more than it's currently on the table.
As I've highlighted, an extra 2% of income is likely recovered by removing 2 strike days in a month. If that covers the 1% to 2% of extra pay to resolve the strikes, then why aren't we resolving the strikes?
Some may say it's political, in which case the party doing so aren't likely to come out of this very well (unless they make a promise about more maths for 17 and 18 year olds - then everyone will love them).
The strikes are not ending for several good reasons. The government cannot afford clean RPI increases while leaving issues like Sunday working unresolved. The only way they end any time soon is when the government stop talking and implement changes as happened on Southern. The 2021 timetable is not deliverable without overtime or headcount and there is no money for either, even if the unions wanted rest day working.
20% revenue growth is complete fantasy I am afraid, you will not be closing the funding gap with that. It has become a structural deficit which need strategic changes to address, changes which the unions are kneecapping whole the industry to try and prevent.
Settling this dispute (the worst for 30 years, they don’t come around that often) would overnight improbable reliability and enable the railway to properly function again. It would also cost far, far less than the damage to the wider economy.
I’m not going to say anything more on industrial disputes as this isn’t the thread (and I’m avoiding the subject).
Have we indeed! I must have imagined using trains almost every day for the last three years. They’ve worked extremely well in most of London and the South East throughout that period.
It'll be a different problem in two years time, and chances are we're taking about an extra 1%, which would likely be recovered by now people paying to use trains.
Only one or the last three years saw rail use lower than in the low point in the 1990's however at the same time road use was also massively down (rush hour was almost no more congested than 2am). In 2021/22 (so year 2 of Covid) it saw more rail use than any year between 1962 and 2002.
Cities can be higher than 200 dwellings per acre, suburban housing is about 30 per acre and rural villages can be about 15 per acre. Even at 90 for cities and 30 for suburban you'd need three times the land space to accommodate the same number of people.
Your also reduce the numbers walking and cycling (as everything gets that bit more spread out, so the "corner shop" is now likely to be driven to for that pint of milk which is needed).
Most people live in urban areas, however most of the UK is not urban (for clarification urban is a settlement of over 10,000 people).
If you draw a line from Slough to Little Hampton, once you passed Woking and Guildford there's just an expense of not a lot until you reach the coast.
Follow the M20 through Kent or the M3 through Hampshire, there's not many places along it compared to rural areas with low population numbers. Yes there's some roads which are more urban than this (M6 between the southern end and Stoke on Trent, however even then there's a fair amount of rural areas), although these tend to be fairly limited in number or length.
There's fairly few places where (other than within cities) where you don't encounter significant areas of limited population, even before going and looking at the Highlands of Scotland.
Whilst some love suburban living others love cities whilst others love rural areas.
If course, even if we could build out a suburban paradise, it would take decades to deliver.
One of the issues with suburban living is the low levels of facilities which are often provided.
I live somewhere which grew significantly since the 1980's, there's never been a bank, library, public swimming pool or secondary school (nor are there plans for any), even though in the last census the population was only just shy of 10,000. There's only just now being a second supermarket being built, the first one has never been big enough for the population and was built in the late 1990's.
Once you indulge remote out of town suburbs, one car per adult is considered a necessity and most public transport becomes irrelevant.
What follows is out of town schools, out of town hospitals, out of town retail and out of town employment. Each destination provisioned with dual carriageways acres of parking, making it even more hostile for anyone not driving.
Unfortunately remote suburbs with parking for one car per adult, is most housebuilding these days.
I don't think I've driven into Central London from Harrow in over 30 years. Overall public transport generally works fine. I've driven to Primrose Hill and Hampstead Heath later in the evening to photograph moonrises over the city but that's about it. When I do go into central I think its clear that congestion charging isn't really stopping any congestion. Apart from working vehicles there's still the virtual Oligarchy blasting around crowded streets in their high performance vehicles. Regent Street and its surrounds has often been at total gridlock. Congestion and ULEZ charging was only ever going to be a tax on ordinary people. You have to remember, those with genuine money in London don't use public transport full stop.
It just kicks the can down the road. Even if the government give staff everything they want, next year or the year after there will be another grievance. Industrial dispute on the railways is simply the way it is.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I certainly don't want a faux resolution where we go back to having no viable train service every Sunday because nobody can be bothered to work. This issue needed sorting 10yrs ago.
I certainly don't want a faux resolution where we go back to having no viable train service every Sunday because nobody can be bothered to work. This issue needed sorting 10yrs ago.
Are they? Plenty of other industries basically never have them, or at least very, very rarely, not as an almost standard means of negotiating the annual pay rise.
It's a consequence of the "them and us" culture between management and staff that has existed for a very, very long time. That culture is two-sided, and it's hard if not impossible to fix, though.
Are they? Plenty of other industries basically never have them, or at least very, very rarely, not as an almost standard means of negotiating the annual pay rise.
It's a consequence of the "them and us" culture between management and staff that has existed for a very, very long time. That culture is two-sided, and it's hard if not impossible to fix, though.
It probably belongs on another thread, in fact we did have one relating to this recently. However when management tend to be graduates as opposed to being promoted from the ranks with experience, the gap only widens.
It probably belongs on another thread, in fact we did have one relating to this recently. However when management tend to be graduates as opposed to being promoted from the ranks with experience, the gap only widens.
I've been a train enthusiast since I was a kid and I mostly enjoy rail travel. I'd got my annual car mileage down to about 300 and had hung onto my old car for ages (it's now 23 years old) figuring buying a new one would be tantamount to ordering new furniture for the cabins on the Titanic but, I'm now shaping up to buy a replacement, because...
The cost of rail (1). £964 return for four people from our home town in Yorkshire to our favourite holiday spot in Cornwall compared with £133 in petrol.
The cost of rail (2). 28% more money and 100% more time for my commute to/from work than in the car.
The move from HSTs to Voyagers and IETs meaning you're subjected to the relentless droning of under-floor motors on long trips which should be operated by trains consisting of proper locomotives and free-rolling carriages.
The prospect of yet another strike meaning a train booked well in advance for a long trip might not actually operate on the day of travel.
The unrelenting and spectacular failure by all concerned to deal with overcrowding.
I've been a train enthusiast since I was a kid and I mostly enjoy rail travel. I'd got my annual car mileage down to about 300 and had hung onto my old car for ages (it's now 23 years old) figuring buying a new one would be tantamount to ordering new furniture for the cabins on the Titanic but, I'm now shaping up to buy a replacement, because...
The cost of rail (1). £964 return for four people from our home town in Yorkshire to our favourite holiday spot in Cornwall compared with £133 in petrol.
The cost of rail (2). 28% more money and 100% more time for my commute to/from work than in the car.
The move from HSTs to Voyagers and IETs meaning you're subjected to the relentless droning of under-floor motors on long trips which should be operated by trains consisting of proper locomotives and free-rolling carriages.
The prospect of yet another strike meaning a train booked well in advance for a long trip might not actually operate on the day of travel.
The unrelenting and spectacular failure by all concerned to deal with overcrowding.
What is outrageous is that train companies are still recommending that passengers book ahead. For example on the LNER website now, "Plan further ahead with tickets on sale up to 16 April". That's just wrong when strike action is likely to happen during that period. They should be recommending that people should try and find alternatives, for example car, plane or coach, because of the risk of strike action.
What is outrageous is that train companies are still recommending that passengers book ahead. For example on the LNER website now, "Plan further ahead with tickets on sale up to 16 April". That's just wrong when strike action is likely to happen during that period. They should be recommending that people should try and find alternatives, for example car, plane or coach, because of the risk of strike action.
What the industry should be doing is allowing a lot wider ticket acceptance on strike days, including going off-route.
For example, if one has a ticket from Yorkshire - Bristol route Birmingham, the passenger should be entitled to go via London if this is the only train service running on that day.
Not all jobs can be done from home so public transport and that include rail will always have a place and many housing development schemes require good transport links as a condition for approval.
The Tram and DLR in London have helped connect and regenerate areas which previously had little to no rail links so there is a benefit which has paid back its investment.
My job was not not suitable for WFH. I switched from bus to car as I recovered from a broken leg. That continued during Cvoid to reduce risk of infection. I realised my car was so much quicker and pleasanter even though I had a free bus pass.
I've driven to the Isle of Skye and back from Greater London twice in the last few months. The fuel cost there and back is around £240. This in a slightly thirsty car that averages 38mpg on a run. So lets stick on £20 wear and tear too although a long, linear run is relatively low wear. £260 total. It takes around 12 hours which includes 2-3 small breaks. This is generally keeping to the speed limit too. In the past this run could be done in 10h or so but this before the absolute swarm of speed cameras that have manifested themselves over the M1 and M6. Bearing in mind too, that some of the 'variable limit' cameras are now turned on all the time. Anything over (generally) 79mph and you get a nice letter through the post. The cost is split between me an my partner.
To get the train up to Skye is effectively London to Inverness, Inverness to Kyle and then a bus to Portree. Unless you get a butt crack early train, then you can factor in a hotel in Inverness too. Of course you can also travel via Glasgow, the West Highland line then a ferry to Armadale, bus to Portree. For two people you are looking at around £300 return minimum and that's booking well in advance. Generally, this will be around £400 although walk on can be just short of £500 for 2 passengers. And whilst it may seem pedantic...8+ hours on a standard class IET seat is no real fun at all. Some well to do teacher types at work took the train to the Highlands in the summer and commented on how uncomfortable it was and that they won't be doing it again. So its not just us who fondly remember the MK2s and 3's that were once the intercity stable.
Flying is generally considered the best value but during the last year or so flights have definitely increased in price on this route. With a large case you are looking at around £150 return per passenger for a flight that connects with a bus or train at Inverness. The later evening flights can be half this but you then need to factor in a hotel then. There are of course then costs to get to the airport, then train/bus to Kyle then bus to Portree. So realistically £200 per person with baggage. Maybe £150 without.
Timings wise,driving is usually 12h. The train is generally 12 hours too factoring in getting to London Termini and then getting from Inverness to Skye. Flying, on average is 6-8h considering logistics of getting to and from the airport.
So for 2 people, around:
£260 driving.
£400 train.
£375 flying.
You can see why the train simply isn't really an option for most, even though for me its by far the most enjoyable and relaxing way. Well it is if you go 1st but that just add's another layer of cost. Driving is stressful for some, but modern cars are generally comfortable and pleasant to travel in.
And as soon as there are three in the car (or a family of four) the cost of the car journey hardly rises. I worked out two of us was cheaper by car and we did share driving on longer journeys.
My strong personal opinion is that that is dangerous, unless you've got two drivers (but even so it's a long trip and being in a car itself causes fatigue). That journey absolutely needs an overnight break, and even if you considered it didn't "three short breaks" is nothing like enough, you need at least one long break for a decent sit down meal or similar away from the vehicle to completely clear your head, plus a greater number of shorter ones.
Please don't do this, it puts others at risk. You may not feel tired, but you will be.
The tacho rules for lorry drivers and coach drivers are as they are for a reason, and driving a lorry on the inside lane of a motorway at 56 is a heck of a lot less mentally taxing than driving a car at 70+.
I am not sure how dangerous and I am sure most peoples perception of the danger of fatigue is poor. I do a lot of driving at 65mph (on the motorway) as it is an economic speed for my autobox (it is the slowest I can go with the torque converter locked). I have noticed it results in a lot difficulty of lane changing as I am slower than a lot of the vehicles in the centre lane and so pulling out to overtake a lorry feels more intrusive. So I settle for slower or faster if the motorway is busy. I don't get fatigued very easily if I drive at quiet times. A lot less tiring in the middle of the night.
I do try to stick vaguely to the same rules coach drivers have. Sharing with another driver helps.
I think the most dangerous driving I see is impatient bad driving.
Well, quite, but I'm more concerned by the risk this puts other road users at.
Perhaps a case for "black boxes" to be mandatory for insurance - this sort of thing would whack premiums right up.
Nobody should be making a 12 hour drive with "three short breaks". It's downright dangerous. You can argue about whether my personal 250ish mile threshold is right, but this (well over twice that at 607 miles according to Google, and much of it not even on motorways so far more mental attention required) is just nuts.
Back boxes should be mandatory. I have been a passenger in cars driven by lunatics. No such thing as a speed limit, child safety seats irrelevant and curves make no difference. I don't think fatigue figures very high in the relative risks.
Pretty much a rerun of the 60/70s, people abandoned the railways once they got a car and the railway suffered a death of a thousand cuts because of it.
Can't imagine people abandoning public transport on mass in favour of cars. Indeed the move towards using anything but the car is favoured in major cities.
I do think a lot of this is hyperbole, we're seeing new rail projects every year and we see the benefits like the Northern Line Extension, the Elizabeth Line, HS2 in the next few years and even new stations like Barking Riverside and Brent Cross West, that doesn't suggest the railways are going anytime soon.
Forgive me but how on earth is driving comfortable and pleasant on such a journey as the Isle of Skye in any car. I don't believe that any journey is quite frankly nor ever has been. Comfort over such a long trip can be a double edged sword. Subjective I know of course. Until we get Star Trek style travel I don't think such an undertaking is ever going to be easy unless one enjoys such travel. With the possible exception of flying of course.
Regarding LNER, York is under 2 hours from London and Newcastle under 3. Road transport comes no where near that so LNER are always going to do well on that route.
Most offices in Croydon have gone, empty or converted to flats. I know as there ceased to be jobs in them.
I am afraid offices are going the same way as shops. Out of town (be that satelite towns, homes or similar to industrial/retail parks).
Public transport has to be more reliable than car usage. If my car journey incurs delays at the beginning it seldom matters as I am still in the same car for the whole journey. But if my public transport journey is disrupted at the beginning then I lose a connection (one or more) and I am possibly left stranded. I am not delayed but still within the comfort of a transport vehicle. If people are driven to the point where they acquire a car they are not going to revert to public transport however reliable it is in the future for quite some time if ever.
The strikes are not ending for several good reasons. The government cannot afford clean RPI increases while leaving issues like Sunday working unresolved. The only way they end any time soon is when the government stop talking and implement changes as happened on Southern. The 2021 timetable is not deliverable without overtime or headcount and there is no money for either, even if the unions wanted rest day working.
RPI in July was 13.1%, NR made an offer of 5% in December for this year (whilst it's then 4% for next year arguably there's a risk that there'll be a bit more inflation next year, however either way there's a chance that it's not going to be not much difference than 13%), I don't know but an offer similar to ScotRail where they got 7.5% this year is probably enough to resolve things, even if next year was reduced to 3% (total of around 11% to 12% over 2 years).
Yes Sunday working needs fixing, however that is very different to "no job cuts in the next 24 months" which is one of the issues (as I understand it).
Now one way to resolve that last point would be to say "if passenger numbers don't reach x by a given date we will be reducing headcount by an agreed figure" there would be a range of levels based on different passenger numbers, however could include "no cuts" or even "we'd look to increase headcount" if numbers are high enough.
Many of the public would support the government over the RMT if the RMT were saying no job cuts even if rail use was 50% lower than pre Covid. However with rail use continuing to grow and already much higher than 50%, there's a risk that in 24 months the government would be looking to cut staff - even though rail use has recovered.
20% revenue growth is complete fantasy I am afraid, you will not be closing the funding gap with that. It has become a structural deficit which need strategic changes to address, changes which the unions are kneecapping whole the industry to try and prevent.
0% finding growth is unlikely to happen, 20% is unlikely to happen (although not impossible if the strikes were to end and the likes of TPE, XC and Avanti were to see service km's higher than 60-65%), I've never said that there shouldn't be cuts (rather that they should be considered, to ensure they don't cost the country more than not making the cuts).
As such it's a question of where do we try for growth from where we are currently (Avanti appears a good option) and where do we make cuts (LNER would be a very bad choice given passenger km's are at 97% of pre Covid levels when you compare Q1 and Q2 usage in 2022/23 to the same six months in 2019/20).
I certainly don't want a faux resolution where we go back to having no viable train service every Sunday because nobody can be bothered to work. This issue needed sorting 10yrs ago.
Indeed, Sunday in most service industries should be (at least for new contacts in the last 5 years, bit probably longer) considered a normal working day with at least some TOC's having a 7 day timetable (some may not, but they may need more of some services at the weekend).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And as soon as there are three in the car (or a family of four) the cost of the car journey hardly rises. I worked out two of us was cheaper by car and we did share driving on longer journeys
Just one car of 4 means that there's 8 other cars with just 1 person in.
Looking at it from a individual family perspective for every 200 mile holiday trip with all 4 from the family in the car there's going to be 1,600 miles where there's only one person in the car (say going to/from work for 1/3 of the year)
Now whilst a lot of families may use their cars with a higher person occupancy rate than the average these are offset by the many many people who spend a lot of time driving on their own. However I suspect that most would still be surprised about just how low their average occupancy rate is if they were to log it.
For instance taking two kids to school and then home is 2, however add a bit more to go to a supermarket and it's 1.75 if to the shop adds the same distance again as to the school to the overall journey.
Just one car of 4 means that there's 8 other cars with just 1 person in.
Looking at it from a individual family perspective for every 200 mile holiday trip with all 4 from the family in the car there's going to be 1,600 miles where there's only one person in the car (say going to/from work for 1/3 of the year)
Now whilst a lot of families may use their cars with a higher person occupancy rate than the average these are offset by the many many people who spend a lot of time driving on their own. However I suspect that most would still be surprised about just how low their average occupancy rate is if they were to log it.
For instance taking two kids to school and then home is 2, however add a bit more to go to a supermarket and it's 1.75 if to the shop adds the same distance again as to the school to the overall journey.
I agree that for every full car there are many with only the driver in. One thing to factor in is those journeys with fewer people in are often shorter. Certainly shorter than the family of four going on holiday.
But it is sad to see in Croydon the rise of the out of town shopping with all its car parks. Also we have had bus routes replaced by cycle lanes thus forcing the bus stops to be further from the town centre. Something I did not expect is the almost total lack of cycles using those cycle lanes !. We have also had most bus shelters removed during 2022 (I am puzzled by this). It just shows a lack of appreciation of public transport by the council and at a time when public transport is vulnerable.
It'll be a different problem in two years time, and chances are we're taking about an extra 1%, which would likely be recovered by now people paying to use trains.
Only one or the last three years saw rail use lower than in the low point in the 1990's however at the same time road use was also massively down (rush hour was almost no more congested than 2am). In 2021/22 (so year 2 of Covid) it saw more rail use than any year between 1962 and 2002.
Cities can be higher than 200 dwellings per acre, suburban housing is about 30 per acre and rural villages can be about 15 per acre. Even at 90 for cities and 30 for suburban you'd need three times the land space to accommodate the same number of people.
Your also reduce the numbers walking and cycling (as everything gets that bit more spread out, so the "corner shop" is now likely to be driven to for that pint of milk which is needed).
Most people live in urban areas, however most of the UK is not urban (for clarification urban is a settlement of over 10,000 people).
If you draw a line from Slough to Little Hampton, once you passed Woking and Guildford there's just an expense of not a lot until you reach the coast.
Follow the M20 through Kent or the M3 through Hampshire, there's not many places along it compared to rural areas with low population numbers. Yes there's some roads which are more urban than this (M6 between the southern end and Stoke on Trent, however even then there's a fair amount of rural areas), although these tend to be fairly limited in number or length.
There's fairly few places where (other than within cities) where you don't encounter significant areas of limited population, even before going and looking at the Highlands of Scotland.
Whilst some love suburban living others love cities whilst others love rural areas.
If course, even if we could build out a suburban paradise, it would take decades to deliver.
One of the issues with suburban living is the low levels of facilities which are often provided.
I live somewhere which grew significantly since the 1980's, there's never been a bank, library, public swimming pool or secondary school (nor are there plans for any), even though in the last census the population was only just shy of 10,000. There's only just now being a second supermarket being built, the first one has never been big enough for the population and was built in the late 1990's.
I do sympathise, rows and rows of 1990s suburban boxes designed for the car user, a complete failure of our planning system or just the determination for capitalism to triumph over society that we have suffered for so long in the UK
I do sympathise, rows and rows of 1990s suburban boxes designed for the car user, a complete failure of our planning system or just the determination for capitalism to triumph over society that we have suffered for so long in the UK
Well, quite. Most people actually want to live in safe, leafy suburbia and use their car easily. Most people don't want to live in a tight packed urban area and not be able to use one.
There are reasons we can't necessarily give everyone what they want, but that's slightly separate.
I've got no strong opinions as to the rights and wrongs of the RMT/ASLEF case versus the railway bosses, but I doubt the railway workers have the same level of public support as say the nurses.
I highly doubt that based on the fact that the two jobs are completely incomparable. A train driver is not as life-savingly essential as a doctor and nurse, much as I’m sure they’d love to tell themselves so.
Or giving the house buyer what the builder wants… take it or leave it but we know enough people are desperate enough to own a house that we’ll sell this rubbish easily enough, then buy more land to sit on until property prices have risen another 10%.
And as discussed, providing any amenities doesn’t generally happen. Simple things like shops stretch the imagination of the big developers, so hoping that anybody is going to grasp the idea of including public transport in these schemes is always going to lead to disappointment.
Or giving the house buyer what the builder wants… take it or leave it but we know enough people are desperate enough to own a house that we’ll sell this rubbish easily enough, then buy more land to sit on until property prices have risen another 10%.
And as discussed, providing any amenities doesn’t generally happen. Simple things like shops stretch the imagination of the big developers, so hoping that anybody is going to grasp the idea of including public transport in these schemes is always going to lead to disappointment.
A flat above a convenience store or takeaway with a busy bus stop outside isn't everyone's idea of the ideal residence. Many want peace and quiet, a garden for the kids to play in, off-road parking for two cars, space to work at home, easy access to the motorway and so on.
Many new developments have had bus services provided by the builders for a couple of years as a prerequisite of planning permission but they nearly always cease when the funding runs out as hardly anyone uses them.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
