Motorists Subsidising Train Travellers.
Discussion
McWigglebum4th said:
Instead of converting them into A roads why don't we convert them into dedicated roads for buses
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
You mean like this?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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridgeshire_Guided...
Not so sure. Admittedly they haven't really got the "long and linked together" bit. And seem to insist on concrete and rubber surfaces for no obvious reason.
(The access path is great for cycling to/from St Ive's though
- when it isn't underwater at any rate)One of the major problems with discussing topics like this on PH is that many people aren't up to date on the current position.
You are of course living in Cloud Cuckoo Land if you think that a government is going to own something but not interfere with it
Vehicle Excise Duty is not "road tax" and hasn't been since the 1930s - it has nothing to do with the maintenance of roads. Every time you come across roadworks, or a gritting lorry in the winter, or drain cleaning going on, it is being paid for out of taxation. Most of it comes out of our Council Tax, but the Highways Agency is responsible for some of it and that comes out of general taxation. Is that a "subsidy" from the taxpayer? Perhaps you would prefer that people who use the roads pay for the roads and, bearing in mind there are more taxpayers in the country than there are motorists, that would mean that your contribution towards it would go up, because those who don't use the roads wouldn't be paying towards them.
There is also the little matter that many roadworks these days are put out to tender, and private companies are awarded those tenders. So, by your logic, taxpayers money is going to "feather the nests" of these companies
Another point to bear in mind is that, whilst we see people frothing on here about huge dividends going to shareholders, IIRC the average dividend being given to railway company shareholders is currently giving them approximately a 3% return. OK, rather more than you'll get from a Building Society at the moment but hardly in the "bankers bonuses" league.
Huge sums of money get spent on repairs and maintenance that in truth have nothing to do with running a railway. Every last inch of fencing alongside railways in the UK is the responsibility of Network Rail, whilst the adjoining landowner is responsible for it where a road is concerned. Off on a tangent, I was reading a report last week on the maintenance costs of closed railways on the Isle of Man back in the late 70s. The annual material costs of repairing those fences alone was more than you would have needed to buy a house in those days, and they only had 30-odd miles of closed railways to look after! (In case anybody is interested: http://iomsrsa.com/arc-art/257-srn061-disposal ) There are approximately 10,000 route miles currently owned by Network Rail, which at a rough estimate equates to 20,000 miles worth of stock proof fence
You could certainly argue that savings could be made on maintenance contracts, but you need to start by quantifying the size of the problem. And you won't do that by simply looking at an umpteen-billion pound headline figure and saying "that's too much."
Foliage said:
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
To all intents and purposes it is: http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2013/12/17-network-...You are of course living in Cloud Cuckoo Land if you think that a government is going to own something but not interfere with it
Foliage said:
infrastructure shouldnt need to be subsidised by the tax payer it should pay for itself, if it doesnt it shouldnt exist.
"Subsidy" can be an emotive word, and perhaps it ought to be looked at in a wider context.Vehicle Excise Duty is not "road tax" and hasn't been since the 1930s - it has nothing to do with the maintenance of roads. Every time you come across roadworks, or a gritting lorry in the winter, or drain cleaning going on, it is being paid for out of taxation. Most of it comes out of our Council Tax, but the Highways Agency is responsible for some of it and that comes out of general taxation. Is that a "subsidy" from the taxpayer? Perhaps you would prefer that people who use the roads pay for the roads and, bearing in mind there are more taxpayers in the country than there are motorists, that would mean that your contribution towards it would go up, because those who don't use the roads wouldn't be paying towards them.
There is also the little matter that many roadworks these days are put out to tender, and private companies are awarded those tenders. So, by your logic, taxpayers money is going to "feather the nests" of these companies
Another point to bear in mind is that, whilst we see people frothing on here about huge dividends going to shareholders, IIRC the average dividend being given to railway company shareholders is currently giving them approximately a 3% return. OK, rather more than you'll get from a Building Society at the moment but hardly in the "bankers bonuses" league.
Huge sums of money get spent on repairs and maintenance that in truth have nothing to do with running a railway. Every last inch of fencing alongside railways in the UK is the responsibility of Network Rail, whilst the adjoining landowner is responsible for it where a road is concerned. Off on a tangent, I was reading a report last week on the maintenance costs of closed railways on the Isle of Man back in the late 70s. The annual material costs of repairing those fences alone was more than you would have needed to buy a house in those days, and they only had 30-odd miles of closed railways to look after! (In case anybody is interested: http://iomsrsa.com/arc-art/257-srn061-disposal ) There are approximately 10,000 route miles currently owned by Network Rail, which at a rough estimate equates to 20,000 miles worth of stock proof fence
You could certainly argue that savings could be made on maintenance contracts, but you need to start by quantifying the size of the problem. And you won't do that by simply looking at an umpteen-billion pound headline figure and saying "that's too much."
RYH64E said:
Subsidising 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.
Regional Offices as in erm Liverpool, and Blackpool, and Welshpool, and Hartlepool? 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.
Or regional offices as in Watford ? or Hemel Hempstead ?
Seriously I can't agree more. I assume that's why the HMRC ended up with offices in Cumbernauld ?
In my humble opinion as a resident of Miseryside and current paid work in Herts, I am still amazed at the line that seems drawn just north of oxford, which divides the country.
Pit Pony said:
RYH64E said:
Subsidising 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.
Regional Offices as in erm Liverpool, and Blackpool, and Welshpool, and Hartlepool? 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.
Or regional offices as in Watford ? or Hemel Hempstead ?
Seriously I can't agree more. I assume that's why the HMRC ended up with offices in Cumbernauld ?
In my humble opinion as a resident of Miseryside and current paid work in Herts, I am still amazed at the line that seems drawn just north of oxford, which divides the country.
Does much of the financial industry actually need to be in London? Why does it physically have to be there?
eccles said:
It does seem strange this fixation with the South East and London. Many of these companies could easily relocate as their business is predominantly electronic.
Does much of the financial industry actually need to be in London? Why does it physically have to be there?
That puzzles me too, all transactions appear to be computer/telephone based, perhaps it just helps with expenses claims if they are all together in an area with expensive restaurants rather than working from home? Does much of the financial industry actually need to be in London? Why does it physically have to be there?
greygoose said:
eccles said:
It does seem strange this fixation with the South East and London. Many of these companies could easily relocate as their business is predominantly electronic.
Does much of the financial industry actually need to be in London? Why does it physically have to be there?
That puzzles me too, all transactions appear to be computer/telephone based, perhaps it just helps with expenses claims if they are all together in an area with expensive restaurants rather than working from home? Does much of the financial industry actually need to be in London? Why does it physically have to be there?
rs1952 said:
Vehicle Excise Duty is not "road tax" and hasn't been since the 1930s - it has nothing to do with the maintenance of roads. Every time you come across roadworks, or a gritting lorry in the winter, or drain cleaning going on, it is being paid for out of taxation. Most of it comes out of our Council Tax, but the Highways Agency is responsible for some of it and that comes out of general taxation. Is that a "subsidy" from the taxpayer? Perhaps you would prefer that people who use the roads pay for the roads and, bearing in mind there are more taxpayers in the country than there are motorists, that would mean that your contribution towards it would go up, because those who don't use the roads wouldn't be paying towards them.
The motorist IS, in essence, paying to use the road network whereas those that are not motorists are not.
- expenditure on the road network and associated infrastructure is less than the various taxes directly associated with using a car (lorry, van or whatever). Considerably so.
- those taxes, whatever they are labelled, whatever pot they are cast into, are only payable if you use those modes of transport.
Any tax that is higher than what it is notionally spent on is subsidising something else. It's a natural consequence of social and political desires and of how difficult it is to attribute costs accurately.
Personally I think life would be much better if we tried harder to attribute tax directly to the benefactors of a service. But that will never happen.
As for the rail network, I'm one of those that uses it for a lengthy commute. And the road network too. In some respects it's definitely madness. But economically, and on balance socially for my circumstances, it makes sense.
I'd be much happier on price rises if the service at least didn't degrade. But that doesn't happen. I don't want the head of Greater Anglia Abellio just apologising to me/his customers. I want him apologising, forgoing any cost increase and apologising to shareholders that they will be getting no return this year as his service has degraded. That to me is how capitalism should work. You f
k up, you and your shareholders suffer. Not customers who are a somewhat captive audience. Again though, will never happen. Modern society has little concept of direct accountability.
Meanwhile I'll keep paying excessive amounts of excise duty, fuel taxes, insurance taxes, tyre waste disposal taxes etc etc as I enjoy a bit of a drive (hence being on here), fully in the expectation that our leaders will piss it up the wall
Digga said:
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.
It's certainly not "pie in the sky". It's called A TRAIN you f
king numpty.Pit Pony said:
RYH64E said:
Subsidising 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.
Regional Offices as in erm Liverpool, and Blackpool, and Welshpool, and Hartlepool? 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.
Or regional offices as in Watford ? or Hemel Hempstead ?
Seriously I can't agree more. I assume that's why the HMRC ended up with offices in Cumbernauld ?
In my humble opinion as a resident of Miseryside and current paid work in Herts, I am still amazed at the line that seems drawn just north of oxford, which divides the country.
Murph7355 said:
I don't want the head of Greater Anglia Abellio just apologising to me/his customers. I want him apologising, forgoing any cost increase and apologising to shareholders that they will be getting no return this year as his service has degraded. That to me is how capitalism should work.
Also known as the Netherlands State Railways. The Dutch taxpayer is the only shareholder. Is that really capitalism?Pit Pony said:
Regional Offices as in erm Liverpool, and Blackpool, and Welshpool, and Hartlepool?
Where? Are there businesses in those areas? I thought anything north of Watford was a barren wasteland populated by public sector workers and layabouts... (Which is true for Hartlepool at least if I remember correctly)rs1952 said:
Derek Smith said:
I think we already subsidise the rail network to a considerable degree and most of that seems to be going into the pockets of shareholders. I have little doubt that further subsidies would do the same.
Most of it is going into the pockets of the legal profession as a direct result of the way privatisation was approached in this country.Rude-boy said:
rs1952 said:
Derek Smith said:
I think we already subsidise the rail network to a considerable degree and most of that seems to be going into the pockets of shareholders. I have little doubt that further subsidies would do the same.
Most of it is going into the pockets of the legal profession as a direct result of the way privatisation was approached in this country.There are over 100 companies that are in some way involved in running the railway - there used be one (British Rail). All these companies have legal contracts for service provision with other companies. Who do you think draws up the contracts?
Franchises are regularly up for renewal, and somebody has to draw up new contracts when new companies take over. Who do you think does that? You may recall that there was a bit of a tiff between the Department of Transport and Richard Branson not long ago over the legalities of the franchising process for the West Coast Main Line. I think that one got to Court. Were the respective cases argued by plumbers or electricians? No - I didn't think so either
When things go wrong (trains running late, over-running engineering work, lack of available trains from the leasing companies etc) these companies start arguing with each other over who was responsible and who should foot the bill. Who do you think ultimately does the arguing?
Here's a 112-page guide dealing with just one aspect of this: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/ne...
And here's the 11-page appendix to the above guide: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/ne...
You may have missed the gravy train (pun intended)
RYH64E said:
Pit Pony said:
Regional Offices as in erm Liverpool, and Blackpool, and Welshpool, and Hartlepool?
Where? Are there businesses in those areas? I thought anything north of Watford was a barren wasteland populated by public sector workers and layabouts... (Which is true for Hartlepool at least if I remember correctly)Watford you say? I always draw the line through Berkhempstead, Flamstead, and Redbourne
Just booked train tickets for next week from Miseryside to Hemel Hempstead (which seems to have a big industrial estate not far from the M1)
By splitting the Tuesday Morning ticket at Rugby I can get to "work" in Hemel for £71.90, plus £1.90 for the bus by 8:45am if I leave the house at 5am.
On the way back I can get the 12:48 train which get me to Runcorn by 15:21 and home by 16:00 for £55 plus 4 days of parking at £8 each day. But that is a 1st advance on the return and I'll get a lunch of sorts.
I think the motorist is only subsidising the rail travel by the cost of parking.
Camoradi said:
Agreed, but making HS2 a high speed line doesn't give maximum capacity for the line. They would run twice as many trains at approximately 60% of the speed of HS2, as you can run them closer together (in distance as opposed to time between trains) if they operate at a lower speed. Slow down further to approx 45% of the speed of HS2 and you can run three trains to each HS2 train.
Really?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff