Petrol Prices :angst:

[kopite]

IMO being greener is all very well but at the moment the average person in this country is having enough trouble getting by atm. IT seems as though my wage is just about covering my bills with little to spend on other things.

I was watching the news earlier today and there where ppl emailing in saying that motorists need to suck it up and stop moaning about the extra taxes coming in. saying that It will make us look for more green ways to travel. THis is all very well but I live in a place where public transport isnt an option.

IF the goverment want us to go greener then give us viable options to go green that are financially viable. Just pumping up the prices for us isnt solving anything.

The new car tax structure coming in next year according to an MP(not always the most reliable ppl I know) the goverment have admitted that it will only cut pollution by about 1% at most within the next 10 years.

[kalniel]

To be honest, if we in this country can't afford to be greener then what chance does the rest of the world have?

I also live in a place where public transport isn't an option. I can't even afford a mortgage. But if I'm 100% realistic, I can afford to pay more for motoring, so can anyone who enjoys technology the way most Hexites do.

[TheAnimus]

Kopite and Kalniel.

why is public transport not an option? Part of me thinks its a chicken and egg situation. People need to travel for work, but all own cars because public transport not good enough. Public transport not worth investing in because no one uses it.

Or you could move to places that have great public transport instead!

[kalniel]

I don't think you can say no-one uses public transport - last time I used it it was absolutely packed beyond comfortable capacity.

However in my case I live in one rural location and work in another, and there just isn't any viable combination of modes that I can use for a daily commute. I used to rent nearer my place of work but couldn't afford to stay so have moved somewhere over a third cheaper. Motoring is far cheaper than the difference in accomodation costs, and will be even if costs increase significantly.

What I'd like is for more housing to be built, then I could afford to live closer to my place of work.

[Fraz]

great public transport

Oxymoron?

[TheAnimus]

No in fairness to plenty of parts of london, the service is great, it just costs a lot.

Plenty of buses, plenty of tubes.

The problem is that its very expensive (with most peoples travel cards been £120 a month) and much of the infrastructure is aging. But to be fair, £120 a month is a lot less than the insurance on a car would be for me. The buses are very frequent, and the tube line mostly reliable (only 3 'bad' days in the last year, this is probably less time wasted than would be due to road accidents etc).

[Sinizter]

Or you could move to places that have great public transport instead!

Great and practical option for most people. Move home so as to use public transport. Fantastic suggestion.

[dangel]

Great and practical option for most people. Move home so as to use public transport. Fantastic suggestion.

Well why not? Let's all move to London. Then we'll see how good the transport system really is

[kopite]

Public transport is not an option because I would first need to get a bus from my house to the nearest train station, then a train to manchester city centre. then walk accross manchester to get a train up to rochdale. This would take over 2 hours.

As I said moving to another area is not an option because I would not be able to get a mortgage.

[TheAnimus]

Great and practical option for most people. Move home so as to use public transport. Fantastic suggestion.

Its a serious point, perhaps phrased in a fashion that made it sound completely un-sympathetic.

Transport is going to become more and more expensive as the nateral resources become more scarce and the rest of the world wants to use them more. If you look back only 50 years, a car was a very expensive outgoing, whilst running it cheaper, ment that it was beyound the means for most, even if they would be able to get a 20% pay rise by been able to commute further to work, it was still out of reach.

Now thats going to change, and people who've bought places requiring car transportation are going to be in an increasingly expensive situation. This much has been obvious for years, its not going to get better, its only going to get worse and worse as all of a sudden some bloke in china who used to be a pessant, is now bidding for the same barrell of fuel as you are.

But my point is, if your tennancy peroid is up and your moving, or your just moving anyway, it should be something you really think about. Generally lots of people have a stigma on public transport, i normally refer to buses as looser crusiers. Thats got to change, people have to be willing to make a little bit of a time sacrifice to use them.

[kopite]

I dont have a problem with public transport but the fact is that there is no public trasport that would get me to work in a reasonable time.

I live about 35 miles away from work which Isnt too bad imo. I know ppl who drive a lot further. My job is in rochdale and its not really the type of place I want to live

[kalniel]

But my point is, if your tennancy peroid is up and your moving, or your just moving anyway, it should be something you really think about.

No I agree, but Labour are the only party who seem to be doing anything to make that a possibility - the Tories seem to be completely opposed to building more houses and the Lib Dems just want more council houses. But everyone moaning about fuel prices seems to want the Tories in, which IMHO would ultimately make the situation worse due to opposing new housing.

[dangel]

No I agree, but Labour are the only party who seem to be doing anything to make that a possibility - the Tories seem to be completely opposed to building more houses and the Lib Dems just want more council houses. But everyone moaning about fuel prices seems to want the Tories in, which IMHO would ultimately make the situation worse due to opposing new housing.

No government in recent history has really been pro-housing on the scale that is needed (hence we never see long-term price drops) because it's a political hot potato. NIMBY's are the real problem - just try building a new town (pretty much anywhere) and see what it does for your popularity.
Property developers love governments because of this..

[kalniel]

That's true, but labour are at least trying to address the problem somewhat. That they're failing to meet their own targets is almost entirely down to problems with local government, the majority of which is conservative. (Though there's an element of 'not in my backyard' even from labour councils).

At the end of the day the majority of the electorate is looking out for themselves in the short term, irrespective of the potential impact of their choices in the long term. And that annoys me.

[TheAnimus]

Hang on a minuite?

So you think labour have been a good option for increasing the amount of housing over the last 10 years?

At a time house prices have soured above average wage, faster than they ever have in recent history?

At a time mass immigration has been allowed to go un-checked? (which is my fear that people will go back to poland on mass, screwing over my house value!)

There is a loverly park oppersite me, if anyone tried to build something in it, i wouldnt be the only one protesting against it. This is true of every space near me, there are no brownfeilds until you've passed the green belt.

Its not a simple case of build new towns, you've got to find some land thats suiteable, now really worry about the environmental concernes, and worse yet, its not even a case of NIMBY its a case of people who've been encoraged by the government into using a large chunk of their house value to keep the economy afloat, into not loosing value on their house.

I think the first thing they should do, is look at providing better transport, and look at redeveloping areas, so people like kopite would want to live there. There are some areas where theres simply not enough brownfeild land, but there are others where theres land a plenty, just people don't want to live htere. How about trying to redress that?

[kalniel]

Hang on a minuite?

So you think labour have been a good option for increasing the amount of housing over the last 10 years?

At a time house prices have soured above average wage, faster than they ever have in recent history?

They've been the least bad of a bad bunch. They started crap but have been trying to address the situation for some time, but others would do an even worse job.

At a time mass immigration has been allowed to go un-checked? (which is my fear that people will go back to poland on mass, screwing over my house value!)

I don't believe immigration has had any affect on house prices - if anything I think it's lowered them.

There is a loverly park oppersite me, if anyone tried to build something in it, i wouldnt be the only one protesting against it. This is true of every space near me, there are no brownfeilds until you've passed the green belt.

Its not a simple case of build new towns, you've got to find some land thats suiteable, now really worry about the environmental concernes, and worse yet, its not even a case of NIMBY its a case of people who've been encoraged by the government into using a large chunk of their house value to keep the economy afloat, into not loosing value on their house.

Maintaining your wealth at the expense of others.. yes very Tory. There's plenty of suitable land, but people want to keep their own house prices high so pressure councils into refusing permission. We've only built on 15% of the land in this country.

But seriously, what would falling house prices do for you personally? Would it really change your quality of life in a major way?

I think the first thing they should do, is look at providing better transport, and look at redeveloping areas, so people like kopite would want to live there. There are some areas where theres simply not enough brownfeild land, but there are others where theres land a plenty, just people don't want to live htere. How about trying to redress that?

There's plenty of suitable land where I live and where I work, but the Tories prevent people from building on it, and as a result they're supported by the people who already live there.

Weren't people just saying we should live nearer where we work (or was that just me?) But now you're saying we should provide better transport so that less wealthy people who are forced out into the sticks can still get to work, burning more fossil fuel and increasing petrol prices?