Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2006 13:12:19 GMT
Fuel duty (in the UK) is going up 1.25p per litre at midnight tonight (6 Dec). Now is the time to fill up!
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Dec 6, 2006 14:51:25 GMT
Possibly, but since the grockles will queue for miles to make a saving, and a full tank will save you less than £1 extra, it might not be worth the bother this time unless you're almost due a fill-up.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Dec 6, 2006 20:08:30 GMT
So are aircraft taxes. My dad booked flights to Aussie today, so we dont know if we have to pay the now doubled taxes for long haul flights.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2006 22:50:19 GMT
What's the reason this time? I get the impression that New Labour's transport policies work at cross purposes. On the one hand they constantly make driving more expensive , but on the other hand they don't seem to provide a good public transportation alternative outside of the large cities. Even in the urban areas they seem to miss the need for suburb to suburb connectivity.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,772
|
Post by Chris M on Dec 7, 2006 9:30:57 GMT
What's the reason this time? Allegedly to fund tax cuts on biofuels. I get the impression that New Labour's transport policies work at cross purposes. On the one hand they constantly make driving more expensive , but on the other hand they don't seem to provide a good public transportation alternative outside of the large cities. Even in the urban areas they seem to miss the need for suburb to suburb connectivity. Quite. I would love to be able to travel by public transport more often, but its not really viable. For a rural area we have very good transport links - an hourly bus service between Wells [40 minutes/20-30 mins in car] and Weston-super-Mare [1 hour/20-30 mins in car], and an occasional service to Churchill via Shipham and to Street via Wedmore. These have got significantly more expensive in real terms since New Labour came to power, because of increased car traffic they have also got less reliable. You will never get people out of their cars until they have a viable and affordable alternative. In this area public transport is typically neither. |
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Dec 7, 2006 9:41:35 GMT
What's the reason this time? I get the impression that New Labour's transport policies work at cross purposes. On the one hand they constantly make driving more expensive , but on the other hand they don't seem to provide a good public transportation alternative outside of the large cities. Even in the urban areas they seem to miss the need for suburb to suburb connectivity. And it's even more of a problem when you consider that almost all journeys between 30 and 100 miles long (unless going into the Capital) are far quicker by car than train in the UK. examples (for SJC): Stroud to Gloucester (9 miles) 25 mins by car; 18 mins (station to station) by train. Stroud to London (104 miles) 120-150 mins by car (or worse...); 90 mins by train. Stroud to Exeter (90 miles) 80 mins by car; 120 mins by train! But London to Manchester for example is FAR quicker by train than car, city centre to city centre, AND far quicker than flying. And of course if there's more than one travelling the cost is per person by train but per vehicle by car...... So basically ChrisM is quite right. |
|
|
|
Post by CSLR on Dec 7, 2006 10:19:53 GMT
But London to Manchester for example is FAR quicker by train than car, city centre to city centre, AND far quicker than flying. Very few people actually live in the city centre so, for the London - Manchester trip, travellers first have to get to Euston. On arrival in Manchester, they then have to travel on to their destination; unless they have just popped over there to visit the shops. Cars of course take you door-to-door. There is also the problem of what can be carried on public transport. You may be able to get slightly more luggage on an Intercity, but will you be able to get it on the bus or tram that takes you to the station? Once you get into rural areas, matters are compounded. When Beeching snipped-off the branch lines, he amputated the feeder system to the main rail network. Huge areas of the UK now have to travel long distances to get to a railway station and other forms of public transport may not be available at the required times, if at all. This means either using expensive taxis or travelling by car to the station and then (usually) paying car parking fees, all of which add to the cost and inconvenience. Correct, which means that the more people you put in a car the cheaper a journey becomes. But there are many instances where a single person travelling in a car is far cheaper than the rail fare to start with. In those cases, add some more people and the savings are phenomenal. |
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Dec 7, 2006 10:50:42 GMT
Southampton - Manchester: Car via M27, A34, M40, M42, M6Toll, M6, say four hours?
Southampton - Manchester: Train by Virgin, without change 4 hours 8 mins
Southampton - Manchester: Plane to Airport: done it in 35 mins, booked 45 I think, then taxi, say 1/2-hour add-on?
The plane two years ago was £270!!! Now, it's much cheaper depending on booking, but you then have to get into the city, or perhaps you want to catch a train onwards? However, check-in is 45 mins beforehand at the airports. That said five people can go in the car for the cost of the fuel for one person.
A year ago I decided to go by train for three days Southampton Airport Parkway - Birmingham International. It costs £6 I think now to park at Parkway for a day, it was then £78 return on the train, and took three hours in practice. It would have taken about the same time by car, say 150 miles and 4 gallons of petrol: £25 say?
|
|
Phil
In memoriam
RIP 23-Oct-2018
Posts: 9,473
|
Post by Phil on Dec 7, 2006 10:52:45 GMT
Very few people actually live in the city centre so, for the London - Manchester trip, travellers first have to get to Euston. Absolutely - but I was thinking also of the ("time-pressured") business executive travelling from city-centre office to city-centre office. For him using the car means TWO cities' roads to fight his way through and flying means TWO airport transfers. Whatever the cost (on expenses!) the train here is a no-brainer. But for the others with luggage etc. you are spot on. |
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Dec 7, 2006 10:57:16 GMT
My brother goes to Liverpool for work from Central London. Choices: tube then train, or tube, DLR and plane from City Airport? He elected for the train.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSLR on Dec 7, 2006 11:16:03 GMT
I think Phil has hit the nail right on the head. Mainline rail travel is ideal for business executives travelling between meetings. Ironically, Beeching might have got this part right, as his plan implies that this was one of his prime objectives.
Regrettably, his actions drove much of the remainder of the population off of railways. It also destroyed the very network that could have been developed into the system that those of us who are non-business travellers are now being urged to use.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2006 20:38:23 GMT
Transit schemes also seem to miss the suburb to suburb commute. In the US the biggest traffic and transit concern now is people whose commute never touches a city center. I live in an inner suburb and reverse commute to an outer suburb. A London analogy might be living in Uxbridge and working in Brent, is there a reasonably direct transit link, or even a highway link? The road traffic in Portland has gotten so heavy that construction has started on a rail link from Wilsonville to Beaverton to reduce traffic on Interstate 5. This is the first suburb to suburb rail link in the US.
|
|
