Why don't construction prices go down?

And I ask myself why you didn’t consider such points when choosing the place to live, but only now. I assume the lack of infrastructure was already known when building/buying the property. Probably, the trend toward more expensive fuel was also known. Two risks known in advance. But you consciously accepted the risks back then because other factors were more important. Maybe the price of the property or something else. The same applies to the heating law: it is to be expected that gas/oil will become more expensive. However, part of the population doesn’t care; they still want to stick to this energy source to then be able to say after the expected price increases: “I can no longer afford to heat with my pension/income.”

I always find it a pity when flaws (lack of public transport in rural areas) are pointed out, and immediately comes “well, your own fault”... if everyone lives in the cities, what will it look like there then? Probably no longer livable. But in fact, exactly this place was originally not planned, but a week before the notary appointment the sellers of the originally planned property backed out... it would have been in a town with a daycare, school, and better connections. But whatever... you may be able to specifically blame us for that, but people who built/bought here 5–10 years ago or simply didn’t move away if they already lived here, you can’t tell them now that they should have foreseen these developments at this speed... mind you, assuming at the same time that public transport would not be expanded simultaneously.

I always find it a shame when problems (lack of public transport in rural areas) are pointed out and then immediately comes "well, serves you right"... if everyone lives in the cities, what will it look like there? Probably no longer livable. But actually, this exact place was not originally planned, but one week before the notary appointment the sellers of the actually planned property backed out... that would have been in a town with daycare, school, and better connections. But whatever... you may want to blame us specifically, but people who built/bought here 5-10 years ago or simply did not move away from here if they already lived here, you can't now say that they should have seen these developments coming at such a speed... noting at the same time that public transport would not be expanded simultaneously.

That was not meant as an accusation from me. I also wrote that there were probably weighty reasons for the choice of residence. And you just confirmed that. We also live very rurally (a town with 5,500 inhabitants). And around us there are basically only villages, without daycares, shops, poor broadband and mobile reception, and no public transport. We also looked at properties and building plots there. Five years ago, there were fully developed building plots with 800 m2 for under 20,000 euros. It was clear from the start that you would always need a car for the basic things, unless daycare, schools, shops, and public transport were built. That none of this would come and at the same time gasoline would become more expensive was already absolutely foreseeable back then. Since my grandmother lived in exactly such a village and was unable to get to shopping or the doctor on her own, it was clear to us from the start that our place of residence must have some infrastructure. At that time, for all the properties we looked at, we went there by bike and then asked ourselves whether we would want to cover that distance by bike in summer and winter if necessary, for example to go shopping or to bring the child to daycare.

And we are not even doing badly in the local comparison here, so I fear that many people will actually no longer know how to manage in a few (!) years if public transportation is not finally significantly (!!) expanded in rural areas as well.

The problem is, public transport requires many people. Otherwise, what you often see in rural areas today happens. The small town is connected to the district town every 1-2 hours, further connections are uncoordinated. To get to the bus/train, people from the villages often need a car. But once I’m in the car, I hardly get on the bus to then travel 10 km by it. Accordingly, public transport is poorly used and so the whole thing is a vicious circle. Public transport is simply not practical below a certain population density, except for the school bus and possibly an extension of the school bus for commuters. To abolish a car, you need public transport from early morning to late evening, mostly at 15-minute intervals. Instead of continuing to maneuver into the dead end with expensive public transport, it would be much more important to finally expand the cycling infrastructure. It costs little to build and requires no maintenance for 9-10 months a year. With decent bike paths, you can easily replace the car with an e-bike over 10 km, taking hardly any longer. And then politics also needs to understand that different traffic concepts are needed for city and countryside.

I can only agree with that. We moved out of the city and could have gotten much more house and land for the money further out, of course. But we would have been dependent on two cars. Now we are close to the city and connected by a good bike path. Except in the deepest winter, we only ride the e-bike to work in the city. Much cheaper, no traffic jams, and healthier too. Given good cycling clothes and a good bike, it is also comfortable. For us, it’s about +/- 10 km each way. In the villages beyond that, the best bike path doesn’t help because the distance is too great. Then the bike ride takes too long compared to driving. You have to keep in mind that many people also need to drop off children at various locations on their morning route. For that, a bike trailer or cargo bike is often needed. In turn, routes and bike parking spaces need to be designed so that traffic flows well and the whole thing is attractive. I am still dreaming of a holistic traffic planning that does not focus solely on the car.

The problem is, public transport requires a lot of people. Otherwise, you get what you often see in rural areas today. The small town is connected to the district town every 1-2 hours, further connections are uncoordinated. To get to the bus/train, you often need a car from the villages. But if I am already sitting in the car, I hardly get on the bus to travel 10 km with it. Accordingly, public transport is poorly used and the whole thing goes in circles. Public transport is simply not practical below a certain population density, except for the school bus and possibly an extension of the school bus for commuters. To abolish a car, you need public transport from early morning to late evening, usually at 15-minute intervals.

Instead of steering further into the dead end with expensive public transport, it would be much more important to finally expand the cycling infrastructure. It costs little to build and for 9-10 months a year requires no maintenance. With proper bike paths, you can easily replace the car for 10 km with an e-bike, it hardly takes longer. And then politics must also understand that different traffic concepts are needed for city and country.

In the inner areas of large cities, private cars should not be used at all. Better bike paths and off you go. We live in a rural area but have good infrastructure locally. I work in the next small town, 27 km one way. Buses run hourly. Yes, it would be possible, but then I need a good hour instead of 35 minutes. That’s simply too much for me. I have also ridden a bio-bike. Of course, it takes even longer, but then you have already done your exercise.

And regarding our government; now there is someone who actually pushes things forward and doesn’t delay them until the next generation has to deal with them. That’s how it went for many years. However, people are obviously overwhelmed by this on a large scale and many simply have very egocentric views or just no desire. Added to that are the relevant negative reports, which often omit a lot..., but who watches the debates live anyway?

I understand that people are dissatisfied. But what do they expect from them? They have no solutions either, they just have loud shouting and opposition. But content-wise they are completely empty? I wonder that so many people don’t see through that.

Correct, the established parties are also completely empty content-wise and additionally deliberately act against the will of the citizens (migration) and are ruining our country with more bureaucracy and redistribution instead of tackling the causes. That makes the decision: I don’t want things to continue as they are today. I will probably vote for Freie Wähler or FDP in Bavaria – in my opinion SPD, Greens, and CDU are total failures in their positions. SPD has completely distanced itself from its clientele and no longer makes politics for the actual worker, but only for the unemployed and migrants. CDU just talks and is completely not credible. Greens mean well with the energy transition but have zero understanding of economics and the underlying principles. They act without concept and answers, purely ideologically and anti-scientific (I don’t understand nuclear power because I studied social sciences, the physicists have no control over it, extremely dangerous!!!!!) FDP means well and right, tackles causes instead of symptoms, but is punished by the entire population…