Motorists Subsidising Train Travellers.
Discussion
Where I live it costs about $10k / annum in fixed costs and permits to own a car - plus approx 150% import tax...
So drivers pay a hefty price to drive in a congested city-state.
However - the public transport is way better invested than the UK - which it needs to be or else the whole place would gridlock. This includes taxis which are half the price of the UK and more available.
So for congested cities this policy seems to work : the alternative would be like Bangkok or Jakarta - where it is nearly impossible to get around the city efficiently.
What puzzles me about the UK is the relatively massive rail fares, over crowded trains and poor service... While the train operators seem to make high profits in what appears to be a privatized monopoly.
Also puzzling why an orbital rail link round London was never put in with the M25 - would be a big congestion- easer
So drivers pay a hefty price to drive in a congested city-state.
However - the public transport is way better invested than the UK - which it needs to be or else the whole place would gridlock. This includes taxis which are half the price of the UK and more available.
So for congested cities this policy seems to work : the alternative would be like Bangkok or Jakarta - where it is nearly impossible to get around the city efficiently.
What puzzles me about the UK is the relatively massive rail fares, over crowded trains and poor service... While the train operators seem to make high profits in what appears to be a privatized monopoly.
Also puzzling why an orbital rail link round London was never put in with the M25 - would be a big congestion- easer
alfaman said:
What puzzles me about the UK is the relatively massive rail fares, over crowded trains and poor service... While the train operators seem to make high profits in what appears to be a privatized monopoly.
Also puzzling why an orbital rail link round London was never put in with the M25 - would be a big congestion- easer
That puzzles a lot of us too, rail privatisation wasn't well thought through. Developments in rail infrastructure seem to take forever and be outdated once they are finished. Why we still don't have double decker trains like Europe and the US have to add capacity is a mystery.Also puzzling why an orbital rail link round London was never put in with the M25 - would be a big congestion- easer
greygoose said:
That puzzles a lot of us too, rail privatisation wasn't well thought through. Developments in rail infrastructure seem to take forever and be outdated once they are finished. Why we still don't have double decker trains like Europe and the US have to add capacity is a mystery.
Apparently our lines are too undulating and curving for a double decker train to fitSubsidising rail fares encourages people to buy a cheap house a long way from their place of work and commute, that can't be a good thing. Most of my neighbours in Suffolk work 70 miles away in London and spend an hour and a half travelling to work every morning and the same getting home every evening, it's madness and shouldn't be encouraged IMO.
Better options would be more regional offices or people living closer to work, if people can't afford to buy a house closer to work then supply and demand would mean employers having to pay higher wages. Subsidy messes with the usual supply and demand effect.
Better options would be more regional offices or people living closer to work, if people can't afford to buy a house closer to work then supply and demand would mean employers having to pay higher wages. Subsidy messes with the usual supply and demand effect.
Negative Creep said:
Apparently our lines are too undulating and curving for a double decker train to fit
Indeed, the clearance profile for railway tracks in the UK is considerably smaller than that used on the continent - that's why you folks have OO gauge model trains (1:76) running on the same track as our HO gauge (1:87): they had to make the loco bodies for UK train models bigger else the motors wouldn't fit 
Tannedbaldhead said:
Rail passengers failing to be subsidised equates to unaffordable rail fairs.
NO!!!Sheer greed and inefficiency equates to unaffordable rail fares.
I'm a raving mad Thatcherite but if there's one thing that f
ks me off it's the sheer grabbing greed of these companies that seem to want more and more money shovelling into their insatiable maw. They should have dividends capped and be forced to reinvest huge sums into decent quality, air conditioned rolling stock, longer platforms and clean the state of the bloody railways up - most railways astonish me with the state they're in when you look out of the window, rubbish and crap everywhere.grumbledoak said:
Tannedbaldhead said:
From this perspective I'd say the area this thread is most relevant to is London and the very congested South East.
Same answer. There is no limit to the number of things that I don't want that could quickly become subsidized, unionized, and crap, should we be stupid enough to allow it to happen. Level the playing field(s) and let people sort it out through individual choice(s).There's a very strong argument that for every £1 that's spent on subsidising rail travel, the economy benefits a lot more than £1 by way of increased productivity and reduced congestion.
Do you really think London would drive economic growth as much if the 3 million tube journeys per day were done by car?
Your argument makes more sense to rural rail service that may well be heavily susidised to maintain service, but even then there's an argument for maintaining them to ensure society as a whole benefits.
Tannedbaldhead said:
Sorry. My point in less of a constant stream of thought.
Rail passengers failing to be subsidised equates to unaffordable rail fairs. Unable to afford the commute to work rail passengers will take to the roads. Roads will become even more congested and, as such, as a motorist I would be happy to subsidise rail travel.
Now, the forum's views.
No offense but your an idiot, work out how the world works and how our taxes shouldnt be going to private companies profits/shareholders then get back to us.Rail passengers failing to be subsidised equates to unaffordable rail fairs. Unable to afford the commute to work rail passengers will take to the roads. Roads will become even more congested and, as such, as a motorist I would be happy to subsidise rail travel.
Now, the forum's views.
The problem with our rail fares being high compared to other countries is the aged railway system we have due to adopting rail travel earlier than alot of other countries and of course not spending enough money on maintenance and modernising (for profits), these companies in reality should be going bankrupt (that how capitalism works) but they are struggling on somehow.
In my (ideal world) view any infrastructure within the UK should be owned by the government but run as a private non-profit (ie no government interference) for the good of the people and the countrys GDP, infrastructure shouldnt need to be subsidised by the tax payer it should pay for itself, if it doesnt it shouldnt exist.
Alex said:
A better solution would be to give up on the railways and convert them all into motorways. I'm serious.
There is a reason we used tax to create better loads long (thousands of years) before collective transportation was conceived. It is a far clearer cost:benefit calculation.Sadly as a solution it lacks opportunities for both civil servants and fat union barons so it is portrayed as "old hat".
Tannedbaldhead said:
Sorry. My point in less of a constant stream of thought.
Rail passengers failing to be subsidised equates to unaffordable rail fairs. Unable to afford the commute to work rail passengers will take to the roads. Roads will become even more congested and, as such, as a motorist I would be happy to subsidise rail travel.
Now, the forum's views.
So, do you think that people doing simple suburbs - city centre journeys should be incentivised (either by cheap fares on efficient trains or hellish parking costs) into travelling by train to keep the roads clear for people doing less common journeys (like you & probably people who live in one suburb & work in another) where public transport provision couldn't be justified or for HGVs which are generating GDP for the country?Rail passengers failing to be subsidised equates to unaffordable rail fairs. Unable to afford the commute to work rail passengers will take to the roads. Roads will become even more congested and, as such, as a motorist I would be happy to subsidise rail travel.
Now, the forum's views.
I'd vote for that as a policy.
Alex said:
A better solution would be to give up on the railways and convert them all into motorways. I'm serious.
Use them for super-trucks and buses (a bit like the Aussie land Train things) with automated convoy/braking technology for safety and greater vehicle density. None of this is pie in the sky and all of it would create far greater density of goods and passengers than is currently possible with rail.Some country has to be the first to do it.
oyster said:
What if that individual choice was to the detriment of the overall economy or nation?
There's a very strong argument that for every £1 that's spent on subsidising rail travel, the economy benefits a lot more than £1 by way of increased productivity and reduced congestion.
Do you really think London would drive economic growth as much if the 3 million tube journeys per day were done by car?
Your argument makes more sense to rural rail service that may well be heavily susidised to maintain service, but even then there's an argument for maintaining them to ensure society as a whole benefits.
I think that there's a good argument for encouraging business to relocate from London (for example) into the suburbs and surrounding towns. If the cost of travel was significantly higher then maybe businesses would find it more cost effective to set up regional offices outside London rather than increase wages sufficiently for staff to afford the travel costs. There's a very strong argument that for every £1 that's spent on subsidising rail travel, the economy benefits a lot more than £1 by way of increased productivity and reduced congestion.
Do you really think London would drive economic growth as much if the 3 million tube journeys per day were done by car?
Your argument makes more sense to rural rail service that may well be heavily susidised to maintain service, but even then there's an argument for maintaining them to ensure society as a whole benefits.
I don't like subsidies of any kind because they distort the mechanism of the market that would otherwise apply.
Isn't the majority of the problem due to the fact that most businesses tend to want to be in city centres?
The UK should be large enough to have businesses spread out in areas where it would mean that not everyone has to get on to the same train at the same time.
The whole idea of people moving to the suburbs and then having to compete for the same train to get in to work at the same time as everyone else.....as a model of an 'effective working society'... could well be now outdated for the infrastructure in place.
But would a privatized train company reduce prices even if their trains were in less peak demand, even though similar passenger numbers use them throughout the day?
I'm guessing not, as big private companies are under the pressure of shareholders who stop at nothing in order to make large stinking profits*.
( * 'stinking' term used here to show that 'the few' have a negative effect on the 'the many')
The UK should be large enough to have businesses spread out in areas where it would mean that not everyone has to get on to the same train at the same time.
The whole idea of people moving to the suburbs and then having to compete for the same train to get in to work at the same time as everyone else.....as a model of an 'effective working society'... could well be now outdated for the infrastructure in place.
But would a privatized train company reduce prices even if their trains were in less peak demand, even though similar passenger numbers use them throughout the day?
I'm guessing not, as big private companies are under the pressure of shareholders who stop at nothing in order to make large stinking profits*.
( * 'stinking' term used here to show that 'the few' have a negative effect on the 'the many')
Alex said:
Einion Yrth said:
Bit narrow, most of 'em.
A-roads then. 
Then we can make the buses really long and maybe they can link together so one driver can drive 6 or more buses at a time
Maybe even some system so he doesn't even have to steer
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff