Trains Killing Jobs

[piece of paper]

No no. You want everything in London. Fine by me. Others might think it was crazy though.

Other than cost, I care not where civil servants are located. The cheaper the better the better. Not because I object to a small number of civil servants but it makes little difference where they are. Disused army camps seem fine.

Businesses should be allowed to locate wherever suits them best without any government intervention and skewing through rates incentives etc.

p-o-p

[codeine]

The answer is simple.

Stay out of London. It isn't worth it.

Agreed. Posts like this are made every week.

Why even bother with London?

[Cygnus Alpha]

Other than cost, I care not where civil servants are located. The cheaper the better the better. Not because I object to a small number of civil servants but it makes little difference where they are. Disused army camps seem fine.

Businesses should be allowed to locate wherever suits them best without any government intervention and skewing through rates incentives etc.

p-o-p

Newsflash. Businesses are already allowed to locate wherever suits their overpaid Managing Directors in their Mayfair mansions. Usually that is London. But it also could be India, Dublin or China. Managing Directors know best after all. Not democracies. Who are we, the people to tell them what to do?

Glad you think that the Government might actually be better off placing more of their civil servants in lower cost locations outside London even though you think Governments shouldn't have regional policies.

[Live Peasant]

Why commute? Sony TL50 and an xDSL connection or SIP trunk.

Edited September 11, 2009 by linuxgeek

[D12]

£100 from reading!!! I pay £66.50 a week from Redhill, thats 30 mins away from London, and no I hardly ever get a seat so there must be alot of people paying more than me if the train is full when I get on. Its a significant chunk of my salary but I need to work and havnt got any other choice

[piece of paper]

Newsflash. Businesses are already allowed to locate wherever suits their overpaid Managing Directors in their Mayfair mansions. Usually that is London. But it also could be India, Dublin or China. Managing Directors know best after all. Not democracies. Who are we, the people to tell them what to do?

Glad you think that the Government might actually be better off placing more of their civil servants in lower cost locations outside London even though you think Governments shouldn't have regional policies.

1 - Not much wrong in that.

2 - Not regional policy. Cost policy. These things do have to be paid for and there isn't much money around.

Otherwise there will be a lot more of 1 and 2 will be even more severe.

p-o-p

[ZeroSumGame]

Why commute? Sony TL50 and an xDSL connection or SIP trunk.

21st Century technology and management from the 1950s, thats why. Now get on with your expensive 2+ hour commute.

And BTW you'll need a reliable car to get to the train station. Then pay another 20£ per week to park it.

Happy Days.

Edited September 11, 2009 by RockingHorse

[waynezilla]

21st Century technology and management from the 1950s, thats why. Now get on with your expensive 2+ hour commute.

And BTW you'll need a reliable car to get to the train station. Then pay another 20£ per week to park it.

Happy Days.

'tis true..

[EmpiricalBear]

Then pay another 20£ per week to park it.

Happy Days.

Parking at Reading Rail Station is £14 a day now I think. So add another £70 a week for your parking. There's a further car park, but it closes early so you can forget about having a few drinks with your mates and getting the last train home if you use that one.

[kagiso]

No we shouldn't.

Government should stay well clear of this sort of shit. Businesses set up where they feel is best. Skewing the playing field with social engineering is the last thing that governments should be doing.

p-o-p

The playing field is already badly skewed in favour of London.

Despite the complaints about high fares in London, they are still substantially subsidised.

The Tube raises almost exactly half its revenue in fares, the other half comes direct from the government,

Network Rail receives a grant almost exactly the same size as the Underground, and most of Network Rail's track is in the South-East and London.

All that money comes from tax; taxes of people most of whom don't live in London or the South-East, most of whom have to use cars to get to work because public transport is non existent in the provinces.

If the market wasn't rigged in favour of Londoners, train and tube fares would be roughly 100% higher, which would force businesses out of London to the provinces, so you wouldn't need a regional policy. It would also significantly reduce taxes, as well as reducing over-population in London and reduce the depopulation in Northern and Scottish cities.

[ZeroSumGame]

Despite the complaints about high fares in London, they are still substantially subsidised.

.................

It would also significantly reduce taxes, as well as reducing over-population in London and reduce the depopulation in Northern and Scottish cities.

+1. I just find it quite mental having millions commute into London each day. Move outside the SE and there's plenty space on this island.

Don't get me wrong - I love London, but wasting 4+ hours per day, plus all the environmental drawbacks, and the huge costs : you really gotta ask yourselves : why are we doing this in almost 2010 ?

[Laughing Gnome]

Everyone seems to be agreed, Government should keep it's nose out. So how about Government stopping subsidising train fares? I don't want to pay for your bl**dy commute. What right have you got to commute anyway, shurely your employer could provide a hostel and you could visit home at Christmas.

[cybernoid]

What with all this geen nonsense why has there been no encouragement in getting employers to offer a telecommute option to their workers? How many workers now sit in front of a pc all day, something they could do anywhere in the world?

The lack of encouragement for this option is proof, if it were needed, that green rubbish is about raising tax revenue. After all if we all telecommuted, we'd have richer lives and spend less time 'working' and yet accomplish so much more, but who would be paying all that lovely tax on petrol?

[catmandu]

I never have much sympathy for peak time who complain that they`ve paid their fare and should get a seat - I think it`s unreasonable to expect trains to have enough seats for everyone that wants them on short distance commuting trains. It certainly wouldn't be profitable. Perhaps I'm influenced by the years spent commuting in Tokyo.

But at the same time, there is no doubt that British trains are hideously overpriced. They're talking about having a high-speed train link which I am fully in support of. It's long overdue. Yet given that regular train prices are already what you would expect a high-speed train to cost (compared to e.g. Japan, France) it's hard to imagine Britain being able to charge the same or less. Why does Britain have such trouble keeping costs down. Compared to Japan's population density I can partly understand, but I really feel Britain needs to work on reducing costs . Given that more are using the trains, it must be possible.

Just for info, most companies in Tokyo (doesn't apply to the countryside) pay for their employees train tickets to commute to work (tax-free). Mind you the commuting trains are a lot cheaper than in the UK.

[OnionTerror]

In May of last year, I spent a week up in London for a course. I had the misfortune to use the central line from Marble Arch to Tottenham Court Road, usually at around 8.30 each morning. I thought it was utterly bonkers that people put up with those overcrowded trains, day after day, year after year. It was a complete culture shock for me, as a simple Somerset chap. Sod that for a box of frogs.

The provinces are getting there, technologically. For instance, I know that Somerset is one of the best connected counties in the country. Companies are now moving down this way - leaving the rat race behind. This crash is forcing people to wake up, and see what a load of balls, the London life is, unless you're earning a ridiculous amount of money (I'm a mercenary, and that would be the only reason I'd live there).

For me, its about the quality of life, being near good mates & your family. What else do you need?

Edited September 12, 2009 by zagreb78

[porca misèria]

No we shouldn't.

Government should stay well clear of this sort of shit. Businesses set up where they feel is best. Skewing the playing field with social engineering is the last thing that governments should be doing.

It's the presence of government, and all the top bits of the civil service, that attract high-fee, high-pay, high-prestige businesses to London. Then other businesses cluster to service them. That's a huge taxpayer subsidy to London.

Solution: abolish the parliament, and move towards a less skewed distribution of the civil service.

[Toilet-Currency]

It's the presence of government, and all the top bits of the civil service, that attract high-fee, high-pay, high-prestige businesses to London. Then other businesses cluster to service them. That's a huge taxpayer subsidy to London.

Solution: abolish the parliament, and move towards a less skewed distribution of the civil service.

Your first point is a bit far-fetched. Government may attract corporate lobbyists but that's about it.

London has been the European centre of business and commerce for hundreds of years. The expansion of Whitehall is a 20th century phenomenon. Business woz 'ere before that. And if the presence of government administration is really such a major lure for business, why are Brussels and Strasbourg commercial minnows? Or Berlin, Rome, and Washington for that matter?

I do agree that shipping part of the government machine out of London would indeed be very desirable for London. It would also be a positive for business competitiveness- more than compensating for any loss of city "prestige".

As for the argument about subsidising train fares, I am not sure the claims that have been presented are true. But even if they are true, if you go down the route more generally of hypothecating taxes and spending on a region-by-region basis, you will quickly see that this argument is false. London taxpayers have paid amply for the services they consume, and over a period of very many years.

[DTMark]

Get in early, and bung the NCP car park attendant a fiver for the day - cheaper than the train. *

* May not work in all NCP car parks

[Spoony]

Bloody hell. What tales of misery and commuting hell. I'm glad i don't commute it only takes me 5 mins to drive to work. Why do the commute. Move house or move job. Less money is worth it to save that hell. Unless you are paid £50k there and you will only earn 20K locally I can't see the point.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Spoony

[the flying pig]

The playing field is already badly skewed in favour of London.

Despite the complaints about high fares in London, they are still substantially subsidised.

The Tube raises almost exactly half its revenue in fares, the other half comes direct from the government,

Network Rail receives a grant almost exactly the same size as the Underground, and most of Network Rail's track is in the South-East and London.

All that money comes from tax; taxes of people most of whom don't live in London or the South-East, most of whom have to use cars to get to work because public transport is non existent in the provinces.

If the market wasn't rigged in favour of Londoners, train and tube fares would be roughly 100% higher, which would force businesses out of London to the provinces, so you wouldn't need a regional policy. It would also significantly reduce taxes, as well as reducing over-population in London and reduce the depopulation in Northern and Scottish cities.

you're right about the tube being subsidised, but, of course, in overall tax terms london massively subsidises the rest of the country.

as far as overground trains go, it's the outer franchises like northern and first scotrail that are the real dogs in terms of being terminally unprofitable.

more generally, using countries like france and so on as comparators, our rail network is somewhat inefficient, and tickets are usually very expensive, but our taxpayer subsidy is significantly lower.

[this_prisoner_is_opting_out]

I've spent the last 10 years working in Benelux and here your employer pays your travel costs. People here think it's absolutely absurd that you would have to pay out of your own pocket to get to work!

*n.b., this is capped - you'll get your public transport ticket (or cash), or petrol money per km - usually a 400 euro a month cap.

[DeepLurker]

But we also need to examine Government policy of concentrating economic activity and jobs in London. There needs to be a better thought out regional policy which means people don't have to commute long distances for decent jobs - unless they want to.

+1

The south-east is already overcrowded - I don't think anyone will disagree with that.

Yet the government carries on subsidising new transport infrastructure in the region, which will inevitably make it even more attractive for businesses, bring in more workers, etc...

For example, the proposed Crossrail link will get funding "of over £5 billion" from the taxpayer (info from the crossrail site) - and as big infrastructure projects invariably go massively over budget, the total funding received from the taxpayer could well end up being several times that.

Now, don't get me wrong - large rail projects need state help to get off the ground. However, this means that the state has a hand in deciding which parts of the country will get new infrastructure, followed by economic growth. They need to use that power wisely.

[whojamaflip]

I've spent the last 10 years working in Benelux and here your employer pays your travel costs. People here think it's absolutely absurd that you would have to pay out of your own pocket to get to work!

*n.b., this is capped - you'll get your public transport ticket (or cash), or petrol money per km - usually a 400 euro a month cap.

switzerland commuting costs (&lunch even) is tax deductible. & my annual travel card is about 700quid (2quid/day) 12mile commute.

[repetitive bleats]

Just for info, most companies in Tokyo (doesn't apply to the countryside) pay for their employees train tickets to commute to work (tax-free). Mind you the commuting trains are a lot cheaper than in the UK.

My return fare into Shinjuku station from my house in Koenji (admittedly not a huge commute - on a par with getting a train in from Clapham to Victoria) was about £1.50 a day - the fare from Clapham to Victoria is about £4.50

My main bug bear is having to pay silly money to travel before 9am though. Travelling for meetings in London from Brighton which is only a 50 minute journey is over £20 normally which seems steep enough. Travel before 9am though and you have to pay more than £40.

[repetitive bleats]

you're right about the tube being subsidised

the tube is also subsidised by charging tourists £4 per journey if they can't work out how to apply for an oyster card.