Discussion
Twincam16 said:
Podie said:
Funkateer said:
Why are we so rubbish at providing a basic public service like transport, when many of our European neighbours seem to manage it with considerable aplomb?
Do they really do it better?I've used public transport in France, Spain and Italy for prolonged periods of time (i.e. not a two week holiday) and quite frankly it's been no better in my experience.
The trains in Italy were like sitting on a plastic school chair with no suspension... and no air con. However, they were cheap. Didn't run to time very often either.
The buses in Spain were a nightmare - half of them never turned up...
Using the Metro and the RER in Paris, was pretty poor too. Reasonable prices, but packed at rush hour and frankly no better than the tube. The RER would often be late by 30 mins or more.
As for why... well the UK has the largest mixed traffic network in the world, so I imagine that will be one major factor (our European neighbours have the luxury of space).
Storer said:
Why the h*ll should motorists pay for reduced rail fares.
Many of us don't need to travel by rail to work as we work locally to our homes (in my case 50 yards).
Many of these commuters have chosen to move away from their places of work for "a better lifestyle" so why should those of us that live near our work subsidise their "better lifestyle".
If they want the bloated salary that work in the smokes pays then let them spend it on travelling to work. It doesn't matter if the journey is 5 miles or 100 miles. It is their choice to live that far from their employment.
As you can tell, this make my blood boil.
OP.Many of us don't need to travel by rail to work as we work locally to our homes (in my case 50 yards).
Many of these commuters have chosen to move away from their places of work for "a better lifestyle" so why should those of us that live near our work subsidise their "better lifestyle".
If they want the bloated salary that work in the smokes pays then let them spend it on travelling to work. It doesn't matter if the journey is 5 miles or 100 miles. It is their choice to live that far from their employment.
As you can tell, this make my blood boil.
My grandmother has never driven a car in her life, yet she has paid all manner of taxes that have gone to pay for local and national roads.
She has been subsidising you.
Perhaps you need to do some research before posting.
oyster said:
OP.
My grandmother has never driven a car in her life, yet she has paid all manner of taxes that have gone to pay for local and national roads.
She has been subsidising you.
Perhaps you need to do some research before posting.
Given that only a small fraction of the taxes from motorists are used to build and maintain the road system I'd be interested to know where you get the idea that your gran subsidised drivers from. My grandmother has never driven a car in her life, yet she has paid all manner of taxes that have gone to pay for local and national roads.
She has been subsidising you.
Perhaps you need to do some research before posting.
Oli.
Podie said:
Twincam16 said:
Podie said:
Funkateer said:
Why are we so rubbish at providing a basic public service like transport, when many of our European neighbours seem to manage it with considerable aplomb?
Do they really do it better?I've used public transport in France, Spain and Italy for prolonged periods of time (i.e. not a two week holiday) and quite frankly it's been no better in my experience.
The trains in Italy were like sitting on a plastic school chair with no suspension... and no air con. However, they were cheap. Didn't run to time very often either.
The buses in Spain were a nightmare - half of them never turned up...
Using the Metro and the RER in Paris, was pretty poor too. Reasonable prices, but packed at rush hour and frankly no better than the tube. The RER would often be late by 30 mins or more.
As for why... well the UK has the largest mixed traffic network in the world, so I imagine that will be one major factor (our European neighbours have the luxury of space).
We have less rail capacity than we had in 1929 and yet more people than ever are using the railways. If this was the case with cars we'd be widening carriageways and building more roads. So why don't we respond by building more railways, lengthening trains and platforms and electrifying more lines?
I also think we got complacent. We invented railways, then sat back confident that they were the best in the world because they were, in fact, the only ones in the world. Then everyone else built theirs with a great deal more care, planning and consideration and hey presto, they work an awful lot better and cost a lot less than ours.
zcacogp said:
oyster said:
OP.
My grandmother has never driven a car in her life, yet she has paid all manner of taxes that have gone to pay for local and national roads.
She has been subsidising you.
Perhaps you need to do some research before posting.
Given that only a small fraction of the taxes from motorists are used to build and maintain the road system I'd be interested to know where you get the idea that your gran subsidised drivers from. My grandmother has never driven a car in her life, yet she has paid all manner of taxes that have gone to pay for local and national roads.
She has been subsidising you.
Perhaps you need to do some research before posting.
Oli.
Motoring taxes have nothing to do with the road system.
Twincam16 said:
There was the whole 'Beeching casually and brutally getting rid of a hell of a lot of branch lines' thing too. I do wonder whether, had we retained a few more, there would be less traffic on certain roads.
We have less rail capacity than we had in 1929 and yet more people than ever are using the railways. If this was the case with cars we'd be widening carriageways and building more roads. So why don't we respond by building more railways, lengthening trains and platforms and electrifying more lines?
I also think we got complacent. We invented railways, then sat back confident that they were the best in the world because they were, in fact, the only ones in the world. Then everyone else built theirs with a great deal more care, planning and consideration and hey presto, they work an awful lot better and cost a lot less than ours.
The Beeching study was flawed, but to be honest the one thing that they did fail with was maintaining ownership of the land.We have less rail capacity than we had in 1929 and yet more people than ever are using the railways. If this was the case with cars we'd be widening carriageways and building more roads. So why don't we respond by building more railways, lengthening trains and platforms and electrifying more lines?
I also think we got complacent. We invented railways, then sat back confident that they were the best in the world because they were, in fact, the only ones in the world. Then everyone else built theirs with a great deal more care, planning and consideration and hey presto, they work an awful lot better and cost a lot less than ours.
Less rail capacity in what sense? Number of trains, or volume of freight and passengers moved?
IIRC, there are plans to lengthen the electrification, but it takes time and money to do so. As for lengthening trains and platforms - that's kinda the easy bit. It's the reworking of the signalling that takes time and costs money (as well as potential changes to timetables).
As for more railways? Have you seen the fuss over HS2? In Spain, they'll bulldoze your house to build a railway, in the UK we find a newt and then the whole project gets canned.
We were first to market with the railway, but as you well know - first to market is rarely the market leader.
zcacogp said:
oyster said:
OP.
My grandmother has never driven a car in her life, yet she has paid all manner of taxes that have gone to pay for local and national roads.
She has been subsidising you.
Perhaps you need to do some research before posting.
Given that only a small fraction of the taxes from motorists are used to build and maintain the road system I'd be interested to know where you get the idea that your gran subsidised drivers from. My grandmother has never driven a car in her life, yet she has paid all manner of taxes that have gone to pay for local and national roads.
She has been subsidising you.
Perhaps you need to do some research before posting.
Oli.
HCMH said:
Although she is not a driver, I suspect she has used the roads in her lifetime.
That's surely the point - we all contribute to the infrastructure of this nation of ours, regardless of whether we drive, or ever sit on a train. Road taxes have never always covered to the cost of roads, rail fares have never covered the cost of the rail network; therefore we all pay in the various taxes we pay. I've never been to war but I've helped pay for that too.Flip Martian said:
Twincam16 said:
Number of carriages IIRC.
They cram more people in fewer carriages, don't they? Anyone 6 foot+ tall sat on a Virgin Pendolino for more than an hour in a window seat?! Bloody horrible things. The old intercity trains were huge by comparison.oyster said:
zcacogp said:
oyster said:
OP.
My grandmother has never driven a car in her life, yet she has paid all manner of taxes that have gone to pay for local and national roads.
She has been subsidising you.
Perhaps you need to do some research before posting.
Given that only a small fraction of the taxes from motorists are used to build and maintain the road system I'd be interested to know where you get the idea that your gran subsidised drivers from. My grandmother has never driven a car in her life, yet she has paid all manner of taxes that have gone to pay for local and national roads.
She has been subsidising you.
Perhaps you need to do some research before posting.
Oli.
Motoring taxes have nothing to do with the road system.
However, given that motorists put far more into the pot than ever comes out of it to spend on roads, I'd suggest that your idea that your gran subsidised drivers is flawed. You can't track individual pounds, but the extra taxes paid by motorists that weren't spent on roads will have gone to things which may have benfitted your gran, so I suggest that motorists subsidised her rather than vice-versa.
Oli.
zcacogp said:
oyster said:
zcacogp said:
oyster said:
OP.
My grandmother has never driven a car in her life, yet she has paid all manner of taxes that have gone to pay for local and national roads.
She has been subsidising you.
Perhaps you need to do some research before posting.
Given that only a small fraction of the taxes from motorists are used to build and maintain the road system I'd be interested to know where you get the idea that your gran subsidised drivers from. My grandmother has never driven a car in her life, yet she has paid all manner of taxes that have gone to pay for local and national roads.
She has been subsidising you.
Perhaps you need to do some research before posting.
Oli.
Motoring taxes have nothing to do with the road system.
However, given that motorists put far more into the pot than ever comes out of it to spend on roads, I'd suggest that your idea that your gran subsidised drivers is flawed. You can't track individual pounds, but the extra taxes paid by motorists that weren't spent on roads will have gone to things which may have benfitted your gran, so I suggest that motorists subsidised her rather than vice-versa.
Oli.
But likewise as you suggest no taxes are hypothecated, then there can actually be no relative subsidies at all. And why should motorists be grouped together as if they are a unique set? Does a RR driver subsidise a Pruis driver?
oyster said:
It was disingenuous of me to suggest my gran is subsidising car motorists, of course.
But likewise as you suggest no taxes are hypothecated, then there can actually be no relative subsidies at all. And why should motorists be grouped together as if they are a unique set? Does a RR driver subsidise a Pruis driver?
All good questions, and interesting ones at that. But likewise as you suggest no taxes are hypothecated, then there can actually be no relative subsidies at all. And why should motorists be grouped together as if they are a unique set? Does a RR driver subsidise a Pruis driver?
I disagree that things cannot be 'relatively subsidised'. The lack of hypothecation is the means by which such relative subsidies occur.
Oli.
Podie said:
Flip Martian said:
Twincam16 said:
Number of carriages IIRC.
They cram more people in fewer carriages, don't they? Anyone 6 foot+ tall sat on a Virgin Pendolino for more than an hour in a window seat?! Bloody horrible things. The old intercity trains were huge by comparison.Flip Martian said:
Podie said:
Flip Martian said:
Twincam16 said:
Number of carriages IIRC.
They cram more people in fewer carriages, don't they? Anyone 6 foot+ tall sat on a Virgin Pendolino for more than an hour in a window seat?! Bloody horrible things. The old intercity trains were huge by comparison.Blue seats still exist - all of them are still in service.
A survey was done and commuters were asked what they wanted most. The response was "more seats" - so guess what, they shoe-horned another 20 in to a carriage.
Podie said:
Likewise, I use LM daily.
Blue seats still exist - all of them are still in service.
A survey was done and commuters were asked what they wanted most. The response was "more seats" - so guess what, they shoe-horned another 20 in to a carriage.
They do exist yes; on the trains I get from Wolverton, sometimes there are still some; more often there isn't now. Silverlink had left us with the blue seat trains which were at least comfortable (and far better than the older ones now in use on the Watford local line). LM seemed to bring their green carriages with them when they took over on our route and they're spectacularly unpopular. The blue seat carriages will fill first.Blue seats still exist - all of them are still in service.
A survey was done and commuters were asked what they wanted most. The response was "more seats" - so guess what, they shoe-horned another 20 in to a carriage.
Sorry, strayed off topic.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff