I don't believe the average person in Brent spends 72% of their income on rent.
Perhaps it is average rent/ average income which may be disproportionately skewed if the former is mean and latter is median, which is how those figures are usually reported.
The truth is scary enough though.
Sounds right. 35-60% range of their income seems about right for what private renters in London pay for housing.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
Guildford to London is ~30 miles is it not? Why is that not perfectly feasible on an ebike?
Just wondering Philip, do you think we should privatise the roads?
I don't think the roads should be subsidised. I don't think the Government should spend more on roads than it raises in fuel duty, vehicle excise duties etc
"Don't think the roads should be subsidised."
Say WHAT?
The Government makes a profit from drivers, they're not subsidised already.
You have me completely foxed now. I thought you were arguing for the diametrically opposed point of view.
Lol e-bikes are not the solution to any kind of problem for medium distance commuters. I can cycle to work, but it's not very far from Hampstead to Vintners Place. I can't imagine doing 40 miles there and back on an e-bike, that's not realistic.
But how many people make a 40 mile commute?
According to a quick Google search the average London commute is 13 miles, not 40 miles. Entirely feasible on an ebike which costs the fraction of a season ticket - and that's just one of many viable alternatives to rail.
You suggested I get an E-bike to get around rail commuting, or are you now accepting that's not an option.
I've just had a look at helicopters
I think it is an option - one of many.
If your commute costs £7,000 to get a season ticket then a £2,000 ebike seems like a very good idea to me. After 5 years you would have saved £33,000 in your commuting costs, and you'll be fit and healthy. Plus as I understand it ebikes don't leave you sweaty either.
But as I said its just one option of many. Especially if your commute is just ~13 miles as is average.
Lol e-bikes are not the solution to any kind of problem for medium distance commuters. I can cycle to work, but it's not very far from Hampstead to Vintners Place. I can't imagine doing 40 miles there and back on an e-bike, that's not realistic.
But how many people make a 40 mile commute?
According to a quick Google search the average London commute is 13 miles, not 40 miles. Entirely feasible on an ebike which costs the fraction of a season ticket - and that's just one of many viable alternatives to rail.
You suggested I get an E-bike to get around rail commuting, or are you now accepting that's not an option.
I've just had a look at helicopters
I think it is an option - one of many.
If your commute costs £7,000 to get a season ticket then a £2,000 ebike seems like a very good idea to me. After 5 years you would have saved £33,000 in your commuting costs, and you'll be fit and healthy. Plus as I understand it ebikes don't leave you sweaty either.
But as I said its just one option of many. Especially if your commute is just ~13 miles as is average.
But my commute on an E-bike is not 13 miles, it's 47 miles, we've been over this
Just wondering Philip, do you think we should privatise the roads?
I don't think the roads should be subsidised. I don't think the Government should spend more on roads than it raises in fuel duty, vehicle excise duties etc
I'm sure you realise that vehicle excise duty is not a hypothecated tax.
I know Germans who came to London to work in the city because they get paid more and it is a global city in the way no German city is and they are prepared to pay high rent for that. For example one German friend I was at university with was a city lawyer in London and has now moved to New York city having passed the New York bar.
If you want to pay less move to cheaper home counties like Kent and Essex and commute or WFH
Lol e-bikes are not the solution to any kind of problem for medium distance commuters. I can cycle to work, but it's not very far from Hampstead to Vintners Place. I can't imagine doing 40 miles there and back on an e-bike, that's not realistic.
But how many people make a 40 mile commute?
According to a quick Google search the average London commute is 13 miles, not 40 miles. Entirely feasible on an ebike which costs the fraction of a season ticket - and that's just one of many viable alternatives to rail.
You suggested I get an E-bike to get around rail commuting, or are you now accepting that's not an option.
I've just had a look at helicopters
If you are not up to an E-Bike, then there are plenty of E-Mopeds etc.
The main issue imo is around segregated infrastructure for people using bikes. That needs investment and priority over a generation, as that is what we did not do between 1960 and 2020. Using bikes has to be a more attractive mode to use.
I know people locally who cycle one way 18 miles to Nottingham, and get the light rail the other way. One is in his mid-50s. Quite feasible. And you get to live longer too.
If we had a decent cycle path all the way it would be less than an hour for a lot of people.
Lol e-bikes are not the solution to any kind of problem for medium distance commuters. I can cycle to work, but it's not very far from Hampstead to Vintners Place. I can't imagine doing 40 miles there and back on an e-bike, that's not realistic.
But how many people make a 40 mile commute?
According to a quick Google search the average London commute is 13 miles, not 40 miles. Entirely feasible on an ebike which costs the fraction of a season ticket - and that's just one of many viable alternatives to rail.
Even 13 miles is on the edge of being feasible, especially in the 9 months of the year that aren't summer. But Guildford was the suggested area which is a long way to go. Loads of people come in from Hertfordshire which isn't close and doesn't have cycle friendly road infrastructure (it's mostly motorways) to get into London.
This idea makes no sense at all, electric cars and ride sharing is much more likely to be what people choose if the railways become too expensive. That's the kind of stuff I'd be investing in if I was Uber.
I see the "Biden has dementia" meme has come out to play early in this thread.
I seem to remember a lot of discussion in 2016 with some people (not necessarily on here) adamant that Clinton had some sort of neurological condition that would impair her presidency. Funny how that immediately vanished on November 4th and has never been heard of again.
There have actually been quite a lot of articles about Hillary Clinton's deteriorating health, notable about the fact that she seems to have been using a back brace of late. It is claimed that this is to address one of the consequences of Parkinsons but these are hardly impartial comments.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
Guildford to London is ~30 miles is it not? Why is that not perfectly feasible on an ebike?
20hrs a week on a bike on top of working is not realistic for most.
Why not? If the commute was already taking that long previously what is the problem? And its a fraction of the cost and healthier.
People simply won't do it is why not. You can price them out of the trains but as I said there are significant negative externalities from driving (!) people onto the roads and not, I hasten to add, on ebikes.
So why not ebikes? Have you done much cycling on A-roads? It's pretty hectic and dangerous.
These days (pre-lockdown) I cycled 10 miles a day round trip every day for my commute (on a Boris bike) through Central London. I showered when I got to work, had my gym kit at work for the gym, and kept a decent wardrobe at work also. On a lovely sunny Autumn day it was lovely but often it pisses down in London and in the winter it can be pretty miserable.
I can assure you ebike or not, shifting anything more than 1-2% onto bikes from trains is simply not going to work.
You might as well say why don't people pogo 10 miles into work.
People will do it.
People have found alternatives to rail in the past - passenger volumes in the past were 1/3rd of what they were pre-COVID. People have found alternatives in the present - passenger volumes in the present are a fraction of what they were pre-COVID.
You can say people won't but they will. People will find a way. If rail is easier, cheaper, more convenient then its passenger numbers will go up. If its more expensive, less pleasant, less convenient then they will go down. Alternatives exist.
No, no one is going to do 40 miles to and from somewhere on an e-bike. Even at an average speed to 30mph that's ~80-90 mins door to door. The idea is ridiculous.
Arent E-bikes limited to 15.5 mph? If getting to beyond 30mph with pedal power must be easier on a lighter normal bike - not to mention you will be breaking the law once you hit the many 20mph zones, nor that with red lights, traffic and roundabouts, youd be doing to well to average 15mph.
The key issue with any nationalised service like BR (or British Leyland, or so on) is that as soon as it is owned and run by the Government, it is in direct contention for public funds with "schools'n'hospitals."
Every penny spent on anything to do with that nationalised service (unless you've got some sort of contractual layers or regulated hands-off in some way) is a penny that could otherwise have gone on sick people and children. It's a bit facile, but it's still true, unfortunately. That's why BR was starved of money - not by deliberate malicious intent on behalf of governments of all stripes, but because making travellers a bit more comfortable consistently fell behind further spending on the NHS, or education, or defence, or law and order.
It also precludes any private investment unless you get rather imaginative and minimises any innovation (why innovate? You won't get any reward from it, and you could get in trouble for it).
There are areas of public spending and services where this isn't a problem. There are areas where it is. Other countries do things differently (Denmark, for example, which isn't usually seen as a hard-right neoliberal paradise) has a privatised ambulance service).
Ironically, running another country's services does insulate you from that problem.
Perhaps unexpectedly, I do agree with this being a problem. But in the end it IS up to voters with a nationalised service to say yes, schools are important but I want to vote for someone who will keep the trains going too. Whereas at present you don't have a vote, you have a local private monopoly which will run trains when they make a profit or are compelled to by the franchise terms, and otherwise forget it.
Internationally there are lots of examples both ways. So long as the Government decides what is to be done on an ongoing basis (which is what happens in Denmark with privatised services), I don't really care who owns it.
I am utterly sick of the anti-London perspective a limited number of users here have
FILSITS.
Failed in London, settled in the sticks.
There's no need for this mate.
Tbf, a lot of the critics of London are those who couldn't cut it in London bitching at people who could.
If Londoners were as rude about other towns and cities as people (not just on PB) are about London they would rightly be criticised for it. Yet Londoners are expected to shrug their shoulders and take it, despite being hated on day after day.
For good measure, I'll have a go at a counterattack: I suspect many of the places the PB Bumpkins live in are boring shitholes (I just don't feel it necessary to mention it every waking hour)
Lol e-bikes are not the solution to any kind of problem for medium distance commuters. I can cycle to work, but it's not very far from Hampstead to Vintners Place. I can't imagine doing 40 miles there and back on an e-bike, that's not realistic.
But how many people make a 40 mile commute?
According to a quick Google search the average London commute is 13 miles, not 40 miles. Entirely feasible on an ebike which costs the fraction of a season ticket - and that's just one of many viable alternatives to rail.
You suggested I get an E-bike to get around rail commuting, or are you now accepting that's not an option.
I've just had a look at helicopters
I think it is an option - one of many.
If your commute costs £7,000 to get a season ticket then a £2,000 ebike seems like a very good idea to me. After 5 years you would have saved £33,000 in your commuting costs, and you'll be fit and healthy. Plus as I understand it ebikes don't leave you sweaty either.
But as I said its just one option of many. Especially if your commute is just ~13 miles as is average.
I really shouldn't respond to this obvious trolling, but it has wound me up a little. The geography and commuting patterns London have evolved around the various rail corridors. There is not the road space for the crazy 2020 version of 1970s Beijing you seem to be proposing.
Face it, the railways have been built and serve a useful social purpose. Rail travel in most countries is subsidised by the taxpayer, they have never been profitable. But they are necessary, because London (maybe other cities too) have grown up around them. The capacity is there, has by-in large been paid, for, and should be used. Unless your saying we should abandon central London. There's no road space for the alternative.
Definitely looks like it is happening. Absolutely disgraceful.
No it doesn't, that article is completely different to that insane Telegraph nonsense last night.
Whitehall sources insist the campaign will not suggest those who continue to work from home are at any greater risk of losing their jobs. ...
... Mr Hancock said getting staff back to work was a "matter for employers" and, when asked about the Department for Health and Social Care, that his main concern was how employees performed.
"Some of them have been working from home, some come in sometimes, some are in full-time - and what matters to me is that they deliver and, frankly, they've been delivering at an unbelievable rate," the health secretary told Times Radio. ...
... "But I suspect we'll see more flexible working than we've seen in the past and it will be for employers and employees to work out the right balance in their particular cases," he [Schapps] said. ...
That doesn't sounds remotely like the Telegraph's insane suggestion we all said was nonsense.
Eventually I can see the government deciding to introduce tax incentives for people to WFO (work from the office).
The economy seems likely to worsen next year, and the public sector deficit with it. Tax rises are therefore likely to be required, but people who are WFO could be exempted from them as they face increased commuting and other costs compared to WFH workers.
That's a terrible, terrible idea as far as I'm concerned.
Govt subsidised trains are effectively just that. We will be getting more subsidies on trains.
In London, we are waiting, with a certain sense of dry amusement, for the seasonal strikes by the RMT.....
Which brings me to another point.
I'm not sure people here are fully understand the ramifications if the current situation for WFH continues.
It's not just some commercial premises owners - as other have pointed out, the owners will have them converted into flats before lunch. In much of City and some other places, this has actually been slowed down/prevented by planners, in the past.
A very large number of low paid people will be out of a job. The spend may well be transferred to local high streets. So this may end up with a migration of people to move where the new jobs are - and that is the hopeful outcome.
The worst outcome would be if, after a vaccine come out in a few months, commuting returns and now all the infrastructure of local businesses is gone....
I am actually in favour of the move towards greater home working. But it won't all be beer & skittles.
The other thing - one area that Starmer could raise a policy or 2 on - is the legal, tax and H&S following on from WFH.
At the moment, companies have binned the office, and in some cases have their employees working from a personal laptop balanced on the ironing board. In the living room of the flat they share....
Nice for the company. Not so nice for quite a few workers.
Excellent post.
I would add to that that the government is in danger – yet again – of falling into the binary trap. That WFH has to be all or nothing.
Clearly the best model is a hybrid, let people come in 2-3 days a week and WFH (if they choose) 2-3 days a week.
Days in the office have an explicit purpose for collaboration and thus one would expect revenues for bars, pubs and restaurants to be higher on those days people are in.
Oh, and let's kill off rush hour. Let people have core hours 11am-3.30pm (or whatever) and work the hours they want around those, as suits them and the needs of the business on any given day.
The 2 to 3 days a week model isn't good for employees as it still physically ties them to the office instead of being able to choose to live in a cheaper location. Therefore they still have to work from home in cramped space because it does nothing to ease the high price areas.
The one day a week, or a fortnight, in the office model works, though. Even from here a day trip to central London on that sort of frequency is perfectly feasible; yes it’s a long day with several hours travelling each way, but I have done it now and again and it would give the worker a decent chunk of time in town to meet colleagues. With that sort of arrangement large swathes of the country become open to jobs previously requiring a daily commute.
Lol e-bikes are not the solution to any kind of problem for medium distance commuters. I can cycle to work, but it's not very far from Hampstead to Vintners Place. I can't imagine doing 40 miles there and back on an e-bike, that's not realistic.
But how many people make a 40 mile commute?
According to a quick Google search the average London commute is 13 miles, not 40 miles. Entirely feasible on an ebike which costs the fraction of a season ticket - and that's just one of many viable alternatives to rail.
You suggested I get an E-bike to get around rail commuting, or are you now accepting that's not an option.
I've just had a look at helicopters
If you are not up to an E-Bike, then there are plenty of E-Mopeds etc.
The main issue imo is around segregated infrastructure for people using bikes. That needs investment and priority over a generation, as that is what we did not do between 1960 and 2020. Using bikes has to be a more attractive mode to use.
I know people locally who cycle one way 18 miles to Nottingham, and get the light rail the other way. One is in his mid-50s. Quite feasible. And you get to live longer too.
If we had a decent cycle path all the way it would be less than an hour for a lot of people.
Wouldnt be feasible without the light rail, which wouldnt exist without the public sector state subsidies that started this "interesting" policy debate.
Lol e-bikes are not the solution to any kind of problem for medium distance commuters. I can cycle to work, but it's not very far from Hampstead to Vintners Place. I can't imagine doing 40 miles there and back on an e-bike, that's not realistic.
But how many people make a 40 mile commute?
According to a quick Google search the average London commute is 13 miles, not 40 miles. Entirely feasible on an ebike which costs the fraction of a season ticket - and that's just one of many viable alternatives to rail.
You suggested I get an E-bike to get around rail commuting, or are you now accepting that's not an option.
I've just had a look at helicopters
Get a Pave Hawk for your commute. It's a valid alternative.
Actually Philip's graph if you look closely actually shows numbers increasing prior to privatisation.
I am going to make a guess and say if BR was still around we would have seen similar increases. Population growth is the cause.
You'd need a per capita graph to check that, although I suspect the increase at the end is much faster than population growth (the population of the UK hasn't doubled since 1995). There's quite a few plots on this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of_British_Rail. There's one showing rail's share of total travel, with the inflection point right around the time of privatisation.
That also raises the point that, at the same time, we had the Major ministry forced by Swampy to abandon its road-building programme.
Yes Swampy was a bit of a legend in his own lunchtime, wasn't he?
I had forgotten all about him.
Turns out that these days he's got a proper job working for the Forestry Commission, although he still lives in a Welsh commune, in a yurt.
Just wondering Philip, do you think we should privatise the roads?
I don't think the roads should be subsidised. I don't think the Government should spend more on roads than it raises in fuel duty, vehicle excise duties etc
So you think the roads should be privatised, yes or no?
I have found an infallible cure for those who think roads should be privatised is one trip on the M6 Toll.
To be honest, I'm not entirely against the concept of toll roads, I just don't see why the Government can't do that
I already pay a road toll. It is called Vehicle Excise Duty!
Lol e-bikes are not the solution to any kind of problem for medium distance commuters. I can cycle to work, but it's not very far from Hampstead to Vintners Place. I can't imagine doing 40 miles there and back on an e-bike, that's not realistic.
But how many people make a 40 mile commute?
According to a quick Google search the average London commute is 13 miles, not 40 miles. Entirely feasible on an ebike which costs the fraction of a season ticket - and that's just one of many viable alternatives to rail.
You suggested I get an E-bike to get around rail commuting, or are you now accepting that's not an option.
I've just had a look at helicopters
I think it is an option - one of many.
If your commute costs £7,000 to get a season ticket then a £2,000 ebike seems like a very good idea to me. After 5 years you would have saved £33,000 in your commuting costs, and you'll be fit and healthy. Plus as I understand it ebikes don't leave you sweaty either.
But as I said its just one option of many. Especially if your commute is just ~13 miles as is average.
Just wondering Philip, do you think we should privatise the roads?
I don't think the roads should be subsidised. I don't think the Government should spend more on roads than it raises in fuel duty, vehicle excise duties etc
So you think the roads should be privatised, yes or no?
I have found an infallible cure for those who think roads should be privatised is one trip on the M6 Toll.
The M6 toll is the best road in the country, the only thing wrong with it is having to be hyper-alert for the rozzers. They should use it as a pilot scheme for a 100mph speed limit.
Lol e-bikes are not the solution to any kind of problem for medium distance commuters. I can cycle to work, but it's not very far from Hampstead to Vintners Place. I can't imagine doing 40 miles there and back on an e-bike, that's not realistic.
But how many people make a 40 mile commute?
According to a quick Google search the average London commute is 13 miles, not 40 miles. Entirely feasible on an ebike which costs the fraction of a season ticket - and that's just one of many viable alternatives to rail.
You suggested I get an E-bike to get around rail commuting, or are you now accepting that's not an option.
I've just had a look at helicopters
I think it is an option - one of many.
If your commute costs £7,000 to get a season ticket then a £2,000 ebike seems like a very good idea to me. After 5 years you would have saved £33,000 in your commuting costs, and you'll be fit and healthy. Plus as I understand it ebikes don't leave you sweaty either.
But as I said its just one option of many. Especially if your commute is just ~13 miles as is average.
I really shouldn't respond to this obvious trolling, but it has wound me up a little. The geography and commuting patterns London have evolved around the various rail corridors. There is not the road space for the crazy 2020 version of 1970s Beijing you seem to be proposing.
Face it, the railways have been built and serve a useful social purpose. Rail travel in most countries is subsidised by the taxpayer, they have never been profitable. But they are necessary, because London (maybe other cities too) have grown up around them. The capacity is there, has by-in large been paid, for, and should be used. Unless your saying we should abandon central London. There's no road space for the alternative.
Indeed, one of the reasons London has provided so many jobs is the transport infrastructure. The jobs lead to taxes, which lead to spending elsewhere. It is simple investment creating real returns later on, not handouts.
Lol e-bikes are not the solution to any kind of problem for medium distance commuters. I can cycle to work, but it's not very far from Hampstead to Vintners Place. I can't imagine doing 40 miles there and back on an e-bike, that's not realistic.
But how many people make a 40 mile commute?
According to a quick Google search the average London commute is 13 miles, not 40 miles. Entirely feasible on an ebike which costs the fraction of a season ticket - and that's just one of many viable alternatives to rail.
You suggested I get an E-bike to get around rail commuting, or are you now accepting that's not an option.
I've just had a look at helicopters
I think it is an option - one of many.
If your commute costs £7,000 to get a season ticket then a £2,000 ebike seems like a very good idea to me. After 5 years you would have saved £33,000 in your commuting costs, and you'll be fit and healthy. Plus as I understand it ebikes don't leave you sweaty either.
But as I said its just one option of many. Especially if your commute is just ~13 miles as is average.
2 grand e-bikes are Chinese garbage.
Cheaper than the Sikorsky alternative you suggested earlier though.
Lol e-bikes are not the solution to any kind of problem for medium distance commuters. I can cycle to work, but it's not very far from Hampstead to Vintners Place. I can't imagine doing 40 miles there and back on an e-bike, that's not realistic.
But how many people make a 40 mile commute?
According to a quick Google search the average London commute is 13 miles, not 40 miles. Entirely feasible on an ebike which costs the fraction of a season ticket - and that's just one of many viable alternatives to rail.
You suggested I get an E-bike to get around rail commuting, or are you now accepting that's not an option.
I've just had a look at helicopters
I think it is an option - one of many.
If your commute costs £7,000 to get a season ticket then a £2,000 ebike seems like a very good idea to me. After 5 years you would have saved £33,000 in your commuting costs, and you'll be fit and healthy. Plus as I understand it ebikes don't leave you sweaty either.
But as I said its just one option of many. Especially if your commute is just ~13 miles as is average.
You really wouldn’t want to cycle 13 miles through central London as a commute. It would take a couple of hours on a good day thanks to the crappy roads, not to mention the weather and the chance of an accident.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
Guildford to London is ~30 miles is it not? Why is that not perfectly feasible on an ebike?
20hrs a week on a bike on top of working is not realistic for most.
Why not? If the commute was already taking that long previously what is the problem? And its a fraction of the cost and healthier.
People simply won't do it is why not. You can price them out of the trains but as I said there are significant negative externalities from driving (!) people onto the roads and not, I hasten to add, on ebikes.
So why not ebikes? Have you done much cycling on A-roads? It's pretty hectic and dangerous.
These days (pre-lockdown) I cycled 10 miles a day round trip every day for my commute (on a Boris bike) through Central London. I showered when I got to work, had my gym kit at work for the gym, and kept a decent wardrobe at work also. On a lovely sunny Autumn day it was lovely but often it pisses down in London and in the winter it can be pretty miserable.
I can assure you ebike or not, shifting anything more than 1-2% onto bikes from trains is simply not going to work.
You might as well say why don't people pogo 10 miles into work.
People will do it.
People have found alternatives to rail in the past - passenger volumes in the past were 1/3rd of what they were pre-COVID. People have found alternatives in the present - passenger volumes in the present are a fraction of what they were pre-COVID.
You can say people won't but they will. People will find a way. If rail is easier, cheaper, more convenient then its passenger numbers will go up. If its more expensive, less pleasant, less convenient then they will go down. Alternatives exist.
In the past a lot more people lived close to where they worked and stuff like bikes were viable.
Now you have situations like mine
40 mile round trip Cant have a car or motorbike as no parking. Due largely to councils restricting parking when they grant planning permission
Not cycling there and back as apart from the weather to contend with and traffic and sheer time it would take I also have respiratory problems caused by asthma
No direct buses and when the trains werent running tried it and it was a 2 hour trip each way
Can't afford to live nearer as the costs are prohibitive
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
Guildford to London is ~30 miles is it not? Why is that not perfectly feasible on an ebike?
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
Privatisation was a botch job. We can thank the EU for that.
Bullshit. At the time of privatization, all the EU required was separate accounts, let alone any organizational or ownership split, for infrastructure and services. The botched privatization was 100% due to blinkered Tory ideology that insisted on creating fake “competition” where none was needed or indeed in any way beneficial. The real competition for the railways was other forms of transport, themselves all highly subsidized, in some cases far beyond rail’s.
In an extremely similar way to the BBC internal market, which has undermined BBC TV's distinctiveness and ambition ever since, and once again related to the blueprints of the elite management consultancies, who played a key role in the background of Conservative policymaking from the late eighties onward.
Internal markets are usually silly.
My banking days. On the trading floor we had loads of internal dealing going on, one desk trading with another to (supposedly) hedge excess exposure to this, that and the other. Spent half our time trying to leg each other over. Much bad blood, much heated conversation, much aggregate inefficiency.
My accounting/consulting days. Major meat company. We recommended - at behest of "dynamic" FD - that the centralized structure be broken up into regional quasi independent "hubs", all of them competing, their own little CEOs and COOs and CFOs, keeping their own books, running their own HR etc etc. Cost a fortune to implement (esp our fees), lasted 3 years, led to costs ballooning and revenues stagnant. FD left. We went back in to oversee the rescue.
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
Just wondering Philip, do you think we should privatise the roads?
I don't think the roads should be subsidised. I don't think the Government should spend more on roads than it raises in fuel duty, vehicle excise duties etc
So you think the roads should be privatised, yes or no?
I have found an infallible cure for those who think roads should be privatised is one trip on the M6 Toll.
The M6 toll is the best road in the country, the only thing wrong with it is having to be hyper-alert for the rozzers. They should use it as a pilot scheme for a 100mph speed limit.
A momentary lack of concentration on the M42, and one can find oneself near Cannock, £6.70 poorer!
Mr. Alistair, that does make it appear that 12/15 are what you would consider genuine battlegrounds, though.
The protesters are recruiting sergeants for Trump.
Yes but Texas is what - about a third of the sample? And its not a state Biden needs to even think about. Take Texas out and it will be more like a five point lead in swing states.
Its batshit crazy. All that cash being sucked out of the economy on rent because people are chained to an office. Rebalance the system, reduce the amount of commuters, break the eBike commuting chain. Companies and people move out of the cities, people find space and fresh air. See their families, do more exercise, find a happier balance.
Or, force people back into the grind all so that property speculators keep their shirts.
Lol e-bikes are not the solution to any kind of problem for medium distance commuters. I can cycle to work, but it's not very far from Hampstead to Vintners Place. I can't imagine doing 40 miles there and back on an e-bike, that's not realistic.
But how many people make a 40 mile commute?
According to a quick Google search the average London commute is 13 miles, not 40 miles. Entirely feasible on an ebike which costs the fraction of a season ticket - and that's just one of many viable alternatives to rail.
I doubt I could have done it from Castle Cary on an e bike.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
The performance under public ownership or otherwise of a sector 50 years ago - an era so distant that its TV representation would classify as costume drama - is in no way a reliable guide to how it would perform today.
"This time it will be different"
Sure . . . 🙄
2020 differs greatly from 1970 in almost every area of life, social and economic. To assume that all of this palpable progress would somehow be suspended for the specific area of publicly owned rail transport, that in this unique and special case it would be like going back to a bygone era, makes no sense at all. People just trot it out - "remember British Rail" - as a knee jerk response to any proposal of public ownership because they don't like the idea of public ownership. It's not an argument, it's a tired old cliche used in place of an argument by those too lazy or lacking the wherewithal to make one. Do not be such a person. Unless you've had 5 pints with dinner - in which case bravo (!) for making any conversation at all, cliche or not.
I don't think of 1970 as so far back really - nor do I accept that life has changed that dramatically. 1970 was very much into the modern world - the year the Beatles packed up and the year after the moon landing. Much of the changes we see today are effectively optional extras - such as mobile phones and PCs - which many still choose to forego.
Mr. Alistair, that does make it appear that 12/15 are what you would consider genuine battlegrounds, though.
The protesters are recruiting sergeants for Trump.
Yes but Texas is what - about a third of the sample? And its not a state Biden needs to even think about. Take Texas out and it will be more like a five point lead in swing states.
Although a five point lead for Biden is much less than many would have guessed, or hoped for.
Its a big lead when there are going to be very few undecideds for either side to convert. Not big enough for certainty and still a couple of months away, but polling is very healthy for Biden.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
The performance under public ownership or otherwise of a sector 50 years ago - an era so distant that its TV representation would classify as costume drama - is in no way a reliable guide to how it would perform today.
"This time it will be different"
Sure . . . 🙄
2020 differs greatly from 1970 in almost every area of life, social and economic. To assume that all of this palpable progress would somehow be suspended for the specific area of publicly owned rail transport, that in this unique and special case it would be like going back to a bygone era, makes no sense at all. People just trot it out - "remember British Rail" - as a knee jerk response to any proposal of public ownership because they don't like the idea of public ownership. It's not an argument, it's a tired old cliche used in place of an argument by those too lazy or lacking the wherewithal to make one. Do not be such a person. Unless you've had 5 pints with dinner - in which case bravo (!) for making any conversation at all, cliche or not.
I don't think of 1970 as so far back really - nor do I accept that life has changed that dramatically. 1970 was very much into the modern world - the year the Beatles packed up and the year after the moon landing. Much of the changes we see today are effectively optional extras - such as mobile phones and PCs - which many still choose to forego.
Although a five point lead for Biden is much less than many would have guessed, or hoped for.
It's not far off. If the states are balanced around the tipping point state than it equates to a 7% national poll lead, which is about margin of error below the polling average.
I'd rather do the calculation the other way round - what was the lead in 2016 in those states? What is the swing since then?
So I did that. The two-party result in 2016 in those states was 51.8% Trump, 48.2% Clinton.
So from a 3.6% deficit to a 1% lead. That's equivalent to a national lead of about 6.6%
It's not a great poll for Biden, but it's not the disaster it's made out to be.
Mr. Password, perhaps. But I think Trump supporters may (beyond the base) be a lot shyer of announcing it this time around.
If criminal looting versus law and order becomes the split, that helps Trump a lot.
If there's an unknown bias in the polling that we don't know about... then there's not much point being worried by a "battleground" poll that's designed to give a close result.
I'm worried about Trump winning, but not because of this poll.
Biden has shortened from approx 1.93 to now 1.85 in the last hour or so.
And the anomalous Trump non-premium has unwound so there is now a premium for both named candidates, representing (and some might say exagerating) the risk of dropping out and being replaced before the election.
Reminds me of the jet pack in the LA Olympic opening ceremony. Seeing that as a kid I thought they'd be a thing by now.
I know the brother-in-law of the only man in Britain (as of a few years ago) to own one. The last I heard, he'd still not summoned up the courage to try it out. Not that I blame him - if one of those things goes even slightly wrong when you're strapped to it then it could well be playtime over.
Precisely, which is the problem. Asymmetric devolution was always insane, the West Lothian Question always needed an answer.
It's quite amusing how you can see the logic here (quite rightly), and yet be so blind about the ludicrous and loathsome FPTP. I wonder if it's because the Tories benefit in both cases? Anything to advance the Glorious 1000-year Rentier Reich?
A question for you: in the late 80s and early 90s quite a number of European countries, some of them relatively well-educated and with long traditions of science, literature and learning, had the chance to design their electoral systems from scratch. How many of them opted for FPTP?
Anyway, enjoy your eternal system. It will never change here until democratic society collapses, which it will play a part in hastening.
@Philip_Thompson your problem is that you’re in your “outside of London” bubble. I have also always driven to work, but I live in the North East, where public transport is shite and there isn’t really any other option.
You have to recognise that for 15 odd million+ people who live in the London commuter belt, rail transport is vital, and cannot be replaced simply with bicycles and buses - this is demonstrated by the carnage the TFL rail strikes cause.
Outside of London isn't a bubble, its the overwhelming majority of the country. Inside London is the bubble.
The fact is that people found alternative ways of getting about when they didn't want to use British Rail and have found alternative ways (including not getting about) this year when they wanted to do so.
Just because Rail is convenient does not make it the only option.
Course it is. You are unable to recognise that circumstances are different in different parts of the country. You are by definition guilty of “bubble thinking”, just the same as those who live in London or other big cities who can’t grasp why some people would need a car in 2020.
If you live in rural Northumberland, you cannot get by without a car. It’s just impossible to live a normal life without one.
If you live in central London, or perhaps central Manchester, having a car is a luxury at best, a huge inconvenience at worst.
The problem on both sides of the “bubble” is not being able to recognise that circumstances differ.
Yes. And people can choose to live in Central London or can choose to live in Northumberland and if they're not happy they're capable of moving.
Nothing is set in stone.
And you keep calling London a bubble, why is it any more or less of a bubble than anywhere else?
Let's be honest, you hate London because it doesn't follow your chosen political viewpoint.
I don't hate London at all! I just hate the ignorance some in the media portray that make it out like we all live in London. One example was I recall Diane Abbott, when Labour was in government, in a discussion about cars saying that cars were unnecessary and everyone should take the train. Oh great, thanks Diane! At least I'm not saying everyone should take the car as an alternative.
Do you mind if I ask how far a distance your commute is? Would it be viable on an ebike? If you're looking at thousands and thousands of pounds for a commute then an ebike costs a fraction of that, do you mind if I've asked if you have considered it?
The commute I referred to was the commute I used to do, not anymore.
47 miles on a bike, there and back.
47 miles is well within the range of modern ebikes at a fraction of the cost of the season ticket that you quoted. I don't know how long ebikes last for but I'm assuming years - but you could buy one every 3 months and still have money left over.
Alternatives exist if you want to take them. If you don't want to, fair enough.
You can't seriously sit there with a straight face and suggest 47 miles one way and then 47 miles back, every day, 5 days a week, is an actual option compared to taking a train.
Its an option.
So is taking a car, or a bus, or a train, or a taxi or moving, or working from home, or anything else. They're all options. They're all choices. That's what life is: a series of choices for people to make. There are no right or wrong choices.
Precisely, which is the problem. Asymmetric devolution was always insane, the West Lothian Question always needed an answer.
It's quite amusing how you can see the logic here (quite rightly), and yet be so blind about the ludicrous and loathsome FPTP. I wonder if it's because the Tories benefit in both cases? Anything to advance the Glorious 1000-year Rentier Reich?
A question for you: in the late 80s and early 90s quite a number of European countries, some of them relatively well-educated and with long traditions of science, literature and learning, had the chance to design their electoral systems from scratch. How many of them opted for FPTP?
Anyway, enjoy your eternal system. It will never change here until democratic society collapses, which it will play a part in hastening.
I am a long way from being a tory fan boy and I despise pr for much the same reasons. I am damn sure if in 2015 if cameron had needed those pesky lib dems again he would have traded away the referendum like a shot in the coalition deal. In fact I almost suspect that was the plan.
I think I would also be right in suspecting that in 2015 a lot of tory votes were purely because he had put a referendum in the manifesto.
The private sector doesn't make any money, hence the subsidies.
Or the trains would simply charge proper prices and react accordingly. They might even be cheaper if liberated from state control as they could consider innovations like driverless trains easier.
Trains existed before state control and exist globally in many nations without it too.
Railtrack was so successful as a private company it went bust
So?
So its investors lose their money, strip its assets and sell them to a new venture. The free market doesn't mean that every company must be profitable and no business can fail - and if a business in a capitalist economy fails then it is the investors who lose their money, not the taxpayer.
If Railtrack had been allowed to just go bust we'd have no railways at all
Well as PT would say if that’s what the market says then so be it.
Even his beloved Tories don't agree with him
I am not a Tory loyalist, I have never said I am. If the Tories disagree with me then I stick by my own principles not theirs. Surely that is the right thing to do? Or do you think I should be like HYUFD and defend the Tory line whatever it is?
I think you're pretty blinkered to think that privatised railways in this country work when we have two decades of evidence that they don't.
We had decades of British Rail to prove absolutely that nationalised railways don't work. British Rail had ever falling passenger numbers whereas privatised rail has ever increasing numbers.
Precisely. Not sure if CHB will have seen the graph in my prior post as it was a broken link first time around, but this is unequivocal. Nationalisation failed, privatisation has succeeded better than expected. The difficulties with privatisation is caused by the fact its been more popular than expected.
Overlay that with a chart of how much public money was spent on the railways.
Hint: It goes up after privatisation.
I'm perfectly OK with privatising it fully and eliminating subsidies.
If people wish to pay full price for their rail then let them do so, I see no need for the state to subsidise their travel.
Great, my £7000 season ticket can become £14,000
Would your route still sell at £14,000 ?
Philip is not using his economist's training. If you double the cost of tickets, say, then you will force people to find substitutions, most likely driving (no one is cycling from Guildford to London Bridge). Hence the roads will all of a sudden be (even more) jammed and hence the negative externalities which Philip chooses to ignore or has not considered will be far more costly than a subsidy to the railway.
Guildford to London is ~30 miles is it not? Why is that not perfectly feasible on an ebike?
20hrs a week on a bike on top of working is not realistic for most.
Why not? If the commute was already taking that long previously what is the problem? And its a fraction of the cost and healthier.
People simply won't do it is why not. You can price them out of the trains but as I said there are significant negative externalities from driving (!) people onto the roads and not, I hasten to add, on ebikes.
So why not ebikes? Have you done much cycling on A-roads? It's pretty hectic and dangerous.
These days (pre-lockdown) I cycled 10 miles a day round trip every day for my commute (on a Boris bike) through Central London. I showered when I got to work, had my gym kit at work for the gym, and kept a decent wardrobe at work also. On a lovely sunny Autumn day it was lovely but often it pisses down in London and in the winter it can be pretty miserable.
I can assure you ebike or not, shifting anything more than 1-2% onto bikes from trains is simply not going to work.
You might as well say why don't people pogo 10 miles into work.
People will do it.
People have found alternatives to rail in the past - passenger volumes in the past were 1/3rd of what they were pre-COVID. People have found alternatives in the present - passenger volumes in the present are a fraction of what they were pre-COVID.
You can say people won't but they will. People will find a way. If rail is easier, cheaper, more convenient then its passenger numbers will go up. If its more expensive, less pleasant, less convenient then they will go down. Alternatives exist.
No, no one is going to do 40 miles to and from somewhere on an e-bike. Even at an average speed to 30mph that's ~80-90 mins door to door. The idea is ridiculous.
Arent E-bikes limited to 15.5 mph? If getting to beyond 30mph with pedal power must be easier on a lighter normal bike - not to mention you will be breaking the law once you hit the many 20mph zones, nor that with red lights, traffic and roundabouts, youd be doing to well to average 15mph.
The limit is quite difficult to enforce and can be circumvented. But this is an extreme case. Aiming for say 30-50% of commuters under 5 miles would be a better target.
40 miles is too far by bike unless people have an agenda eg training or similar. But otoh 80-90 minutes plenty of people do such a commute.
And you can do things such as take a Brompton on the train, or have a bike at both ends (when we get a decent quantity of secure cycle storage).
Build the cycle infrastructure reasonably, that is things such as separated transport modes and people on bikes having traffic light priority and decent views, and the average speed on a journey on a bike can go from say 14mph as in the UK to more like 22mph as in Holland. http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2009/11/commuting-speeds.html
I see the "Biden has dementia" meme has come out to play early in this thread.
I seem to remember a lot of discussion in 2016 with some people (not necessarily on here) adamant that Clinton had some sort of neurological condition that would impair her presidency. Funny how that immediately vanished on November 4th and has never been heard of again.
See also Merkel. The excitement was palpable.
In fairness, see also Trump? I seem to remember him walking cautiously down a ramp was enough for Twitter's amateur consultants to write him off with some dreadful medical condition.
Comments
Also intrigued to see if my bet on Hamilton scoring at fewer than 20.5 races this year is considered green or voided.
And, finally, some good modern music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch1aVmjvYTI
If your commute costs £7,000 to get a season ticket then a £2,000 ebike seems like a very good idea to me. After 5 years you would have saved £33,000 in your commuting costs, and you'll be fit and healthy. Plus as I understand it ebikes don't leave you sweaty either.
But as I said its just one option of many. Especially if your commute is just ~13 miles as is average.
Hovercraft.
If you want to pay less move to cheaper home counties like Kent and Essex and commute or WFH
The main issue imo is around segregated infrastructure for people using bikes. That needs investment and priority over a generation, as that is what we did not do between 1960 and 2020. Using bikes has to be a more attractive mode to use.
I know people locally who cycle one way 18 miles to Nottingham, and get the light rail the other way. One is in his mid-50s. Quite feasible. And you get to live longer too.
If we had a decent cycle path all the way it would be less than an hour for a lot of people.
Glass of wine or two on the way home.
This idea makes no sense at all, electric cars and ride sharing is much more likely to be what people choose if the railways become too expensive. That's the kind of stuff I'd be investing in if I was Uber.
Internationally there are lots of examples both ways. So long as the Government decides what is to be done on an ongoing basis (which is what happens in Denmark with privatised services), I don't really care who owns it.
But it;s a lovely thought.
For good measure, I'll have a go at a counterattack: I suspect many of the places the PB Bumpkins live in are boring shitholes (I just don't feel it necessary to mention it every waking hour)
Face it, the railways have been built and serve a useful social purpose. Rail travel in most countries is subsidised by the taxpayer, they have never been profitable. But they are necessary, because London (maybe other cities too) have grown up around them. The capacity is there, has by-in large been paid, for, and should be used. Unless your saying we should abandon central London. There's no road space for the alternative.
I had forgotten all about him.
Turns out that these days he's got a proper job working for the Forestry Commission, although he still lives in a Welsh commune, in a yurt.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10096936/who-is-swampy-daniel-hooper-extinction-rebellion/
If we can do it all via a referendum held under AV, so much the better.
Now you have situations like mine
40 mile round trip
Cant have a car or motorbike as no parking. Due largely to councils restricting parking when they grant planning permission
Not cycling there and back as apart from the weather to contend with and traffic and sheer time it would take I also have respiratory problems caused by asthma
No direct buses and when the trains werent running tried it and it was a 2 hour trip each way
Can't afford to live nearer as the costs are prohibitive
I don't get a choice its train or nothing.
Edit: It is still going.
LOL
They count 15 states as battleground states. the list of "battlegrounds" is
Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin
Oh no, Biden is struggling in Texas, he is doomed.
My banking days. On the trading floor we had loads of internal dealing going on, one desk trading with another to (supposedly) hedge excess exposure to this, that and the other. Spent half our time trying to leg each other over. Much bad blood, much heated conversation, much aggregate inefficiency.
My accounting/consulting days. Major meat company. We recommended - at behest of "dynamic" FD - that the centralized structure be broken up into regional quasi independent "hubs", all of them competing, their own little CEOs and COOs and CFOs, keeping their own books, running their own HR etc etc. Cost a fortune to implement (esp our fees), lasted 3 years, led to costs ballooning and revenues stagnant. FD left. We went back in to oversee the rescue.
For the world and your book!
The protesters are recruiting sergeants for Trump.
Or, force people back into the grind all so that property speculators keep their shirts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X21OJhiSV8
Although a five point lead for Biden is much less than many would have guessed, or hoped for.
Head in the clouds.
I'd rather do the calculation the other way round - what was the lead in 2016 in those states? What is the swing since then?
So I did that. The two-party result in 2016 in those states was 51.8% Trump, 48.2% Clinton.
So from a 3.6% deficit to a 1% lead. That's equivalent to a national lead of about 6.6%
It's not a great poll for Biden, but it's not the disaster it's made out to be.
If criminal looting versus law and order becomes the split, that helps Trump a lot.
I'm worried about Trump winning, but not because of this poll.
I have more confidence in the economic competence of the Scottish Government in Edinburgh than in the UK Government in Westminster.”
https://www.businessforscotland.com/poll-70-would-trust-scottish-government-with-powers-to-run-economy/
Biden 1.86
Trump 2.2
Dem 1.83
Rep 2.18
A question for you: in the late 80s and early 90s quite a number of European countries, some of them relatively well-educated and with long traditions of science, literature and learning, had the chance to design their electoral systems from scratch. How many of them opted for FPTP?
Anyway, enjoy your eternal system. It will never change here until democratic society collapses, which it will play a part in hastening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMx3hIPyTmc
I think I would also be right in suspecting that in 2015 a lot of tory votes were purely because he had put a referendum in the manifesto.
40 miles is too far by bike unless people have an agenda eg training or similar. But otoh 80-90 minutes plenty of people do such a commute.
And you can do things such as take a Brompton on the train, or have a bike at both ends (when we get a decent quantity of secure cycle storage).
Build the cycle infrastructure reasonably, that is things such as separated transport modes and people on bikes having traffic light priority and decent views, and the average speed on a journey on a bike can go from say 14mph as in the UK to more like 22mph as in Holland.
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2009/11/commuting-speeds.html
It can be done.