Discussion
The rail network is the same as the bus network, in that there are some routes which more than pay their way, others which just about break even, and some which operate at a significant loss. The latter continue in operation because they are needed to support the whole operation or because of franchise agreements or recognised as a needed public service, though I fear the latter view is diminishing rapidly.
However looked upon as a whole, both rail and bus networks require and get significant subsidy from the tax payer.
Railways today subsidised to the tune of 4 billion pa, up from pre privatisation 1.5bn.
Buses: To be honest I CBA to work out what the total subsidy to the bus industry amounts to, but if one includes pensioners' bus passes then the amount makes the above 4 billion look like chicken feed. 9.2 pence per passenger mile in England is one Govt figure which seems to be accepted. Bus mileage seems to be steady around 1.6 billion miles, which gives some idea if one knows occupancy levels, about 11 apparently.See Dft bus statistics.
Water: Not sure on position for canals and rivers, but its small beer anyway.
Whereas we know the position with road users.
The argument that everyone pays for the roads through their taxation, whilst technically accurate, in the way the Govt takes in and doles out money, completely ignores that one sector, i.e. owners and users mechanically propelled vehicles, in their taxation covers several times over what is spent on the road network and therefore cross subsidises all these others who in theory pay through their normal taxes.
However looked upon as a whole, both rail and bus networks require and get significant subsidy from the tax payer.
Railways today subsidised to the tune of 4 billion pa, up from pre privatisation 1.5bn.
Buses: To be honest I CBA to work out what the total subsidy to the bus industry amounts to, but if one includes pensioners' bus passes then the amount makes the above 4 billion look like chicken feed. 9.2 pence per passenger mile in England is one Govt figure which seems to be accepted. Bus mileage seems to be steady around 1.6 billion miles, which gives some idea if one knows occupancy levels, about 11 apparently.See Dft bus statistics.
Water: Not sure on position for canals and rivers, but its small beer anyway.
Whereas we know the position with road users.
The argument that everyone pays for the roads through their taxation, whilst technically accurate, in the way the Govt takes in and doles out money, completely ignores that one sector, i.e. owners and users mechanically propelled vehicles, in their taxation covers several times over what is spent on the road network and therefore cross subsidises all these others who in theory pay through their normal taxes.
Storer said:
I still fail to understand why those that commute by train feel that their journey to work should be subsidised by others. Each person has their own reasons for not living close to their employment but the reason (if you are honest) is normally a personal/family lifestyle choice. It's not because you can't find or afford a home closer to your employment. You can walk or cycle a long way in the time it takes to commute by train!
700,000 people commute into London by train each day (http://www.economist.com/node/13047681), where exactly are you going to house all of those people if they decide they want to walk to work?What do you think it would do to already booming house prices in central london?
If they all decide to live further than the 3 miles you can walk in an hour from central London, bust still not use cars or the train, how are you going to cater for an additional 700,000 bicycles on the road?
For many people, commuting by train is simply not a choice. They either do that, or find another career.
youngsyr said:
700,000 people commute into London by train each day (http://www.economist.com/node/13047681), where exactly are you going to house all of those people if they decide they want to walk to work?
What do you think it would do to already booming house prices in central london?
If they all decide to live further than the 3 miles you can walk in an hour from central London, bust still not use cars or the train, how are you going to cater for an additional 700,000 bicycles on the road?
For many people, commuting by train is simply not a choice. They either do that, or find another career.
Very good point, well made. Had no idea it was quite that many. God...!What do you think it would do to already booming house prices in central london?
If they all decide to live further than the 3 miles you can walk in an hour from central London, bust still not use cars or the train, how are you going to cater for an additional 700,000 bicycles on the road?
For many people, commuting by train is simply not a choice. They either do that, or find another career.
youngsyr said:
700,000 people commute into London by train each day (http://www.economist.com/node/13047681), where exactly are you going to house all of those people if they decide they want to walk to work?
What do you think it would do to already booming house prices in central london?
If they all decide to live further than the 3 miles you can walk in an hour from central London, bust still not use cars or the train, how are you going to cater for an additional 700,000 bicycles on the road?
For many people, commuting by train is simply not a choice. They either do that, or find another career.
If you look logically at this it is cause and effect.What do you think it would do to already booming house prices in central london?
If they all decide to live further than the 3 miles you can walk in an hour from central London, bust still not use cars or the train, how are you going to cater for an additional 700,000 bicycles on the road?
For many people, commuting by train is simply not a choice. They either do that, or find another career.
If people could not buy or afford houses in London, and commuting costs (paying the unsubsidised fare) made traveling too costly, then businesses would have to relocate to other parts of the country where their labour force could live closer to their employment.
My local village has a large number of London commuters catching the train for a days work and the majority are clearly very well paid as their lifestyle bares witness too. I suspect the cost of an unsubsidised rail fare will not greatly affect them.
I should point out that I enjoy an above average income and live a similar lifestyle (without the commute) so this is not a case of jealousy.
Public transport is not an option for most of my journeys (business or pleasure) simply because it takes too long. By car I can get into the local town in 10 mins, get what I need and back home in about 40 mins. If I use buses and/or trains the trip would take 2 hours minimum.
Nobody subsidises my travel (unless it's the one journey every 4 years I make by train!!!) so why should I subsidise my (clearly) well off neighbours?
Storer said:
youngsyr said:
700,000 people commute into London by train each day (http://www.economist.com/node/13047681), where exactly are you going to house all of those people if they decide they want to walk to work?
What do you think it would do to already booming house prices in central london?
If they all decide to live further than the 3 miles you can walk in an hour from central London, bust still not use cars or the train, how are you going to cater for an additional 700,000 bicycles on the road?
For many people, commuting by train is simply not a choice. They either do that, or find another career.
If you look logically at this it is cause and effect.What do you think it would do to already booming house prices in central london?
If they all decide to live further than the 3 miles you can walk in an hour from central London, bust still not use cars or the train, how are you going to cater for an additional 700,000 bicycles on the road?
For many people, commuting by train is simply not a choice. They either do that, or find another career.
If people could not buy or afford houses in London, and commuting costs (paying the unsubsidised fare) made traveling too costly, then businesses would have to relocate to other parts of the country where their labour force could live closer to their employment.
My local village has a large number of London commuters catching the train for a days work and the majority are clearly very well paid as their lifestyle bares witness too. I suspect the cost of an unsubsidised rail fare will not greatly affect them.
I should point out that I enjoy an above average income and live a similar lifestyle (without the commute) so this is not a case of jealousy.
Public transport is not an option for most of my journeys (business or pleasure) simply because it takes too long. By car I can get into the local town in 10 mins, get what I need and back home in about 40 mins. If I use buses and/or trains the trip would take 2 hours minimum.
Nobody subsidises my travel (unless it's the one journey every 4 years I make by train!!!) so why should I subsidise my (clearly) well off neighbours?
If the cost of labour increases significantly in London, that price increase in doing business here could well push that trade to other major trade centres such as Paris/Frankfurt/New York, I can't see many Asian businessmen making the trip from Beijing to Oxford, Swindon or Guildford!
As for you not wanting to subsidise others' travel, it's part of living in a developed, liberal country. If you only want to put in what you take out, let's hope you never need serious/prolonged medical treatment - you might find that your self-supporting idealism quickly bankrupts you.
youngsyr said:
London is a world leading trade and financing centre, due to several reasons, but two of the main factors are convenience for foreign investors/businessmen and a worldwide reputation for providing professional and reliable services.
If the cost of labour increases significantly in London, that price increase in doing business here could well push that trade to other major trade centres such as Paris/Frankfurt/New York, I can't see many Asian businessmen making the trip from Beijing to Oxford, Swindon or Guildford!
As for you not wanting to subsidise others' travel, it's part of living in a developed, liberal country. If you only want to put in what you take out, let's hope you never need serious/prolonged medical treatment - you might find that your self-supporting idealism quickly bankrupts you.
So the 8.17m who live in London and the 700,000 that commute all work in the financial sector. I think not! I know some are needed to clean the offices and produce the Latte. If the cost of labour increases significantly in London, that price increase in doing business here could well push that trade to other major trade centres such as Paris/Frankfurt/New York, I can't see many Asian businessmen making the trip from Beijing to Oxford, Swindon or Guildford!
As for you not wanting to subsidise others' travel, it's part of living in a developed, liberal country. If you only want to put in what you take out, let's hope you never need serious/prolonged medical treatment - you might find that your self-supporting idealism quickly bankrupts you.
Many businesses don't need to be in London especially if the UK got it's ass into gear and rolled out 100mb broadband.
Staff like the cachet of "working in the city" but many of them don't "need" to be there. They could be in Milton Keynes, Birmingham or, heaven forbid, Newcastle.
Also, believe it or not there are quite a few unemployed people living in London. Why???????????
I'm a bit confused, from what I can see the only TOC that doesn't get a subsidy is First Capital Connect.
The rest all get subsidies, one as high as 34.9p per passenger mile.
So, setting First Capital connect aside, which does provide quite a bit of commuter traffic accepted routemap then wtf are the rest of the commuters fecking moaning about, they are already subsidised.
The rest all get subsidies, one as high as 34.9p per passenger mile.
So, setting First Capital connect aside, which does provide quite a bit of commuter traffic accepted routemap then wtf are the rest of the commuters fecking moaning about, they are already subsidised.
Fine. Turn off all the trains tomorrow. See if it has any effect on the motorists. I'd hazard that would screw the road network good and proper. So, we need to find a system of managing our transport network that doesn't screw the road network (even more than it is already). That transport policy would likely include managing a rail network. No European country (of any size that I can think of) manages a rail netowrk the size and complexity of ours with anything like the sheer number of passenger miles as ours without hefty subsidy.
Not to say things can't be done considerably better, but to highlight the fact the World isn't as black and white or simple as we might wish it to be.
Not to say things can't be done considerably better, but to highlight the fact the World isn't as black and white or simple as we might wish it to be.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff