Motorists Subsidising Train Travellers.
Discussion
In the past I've commuted by train and cycled to work. At present I drive a company vehicle to an office 30 miles from home and then go on to visit a number of sites all over Scotland. You'd think a cut in rail subsidies diverted into my pocket would put a smile on my face but no. Don't believe me? Look See?
TBH going all leftie? Green? Nope. It's all about me me me. The cash these poor buggers are forking out getting to work on the choo choo is often enough to buy/lease, fuel, tax and insure a little Citroen C1 and drive the little bugger to work. The motorways I drive (M80 M73 M74 and M8) on to work are busy enough.
Motorists subsidising rail travellers? From a personal perspective I've got to say, hell yeah!
TBH going all leftie? Green? Nope. It's all about me me me. The cash these poor buggers are forking out getting to work on the choo choo is often enough to buy/lease, fuel, tax and insure a little Citroen C1 and drive the little bugger to work. The motorways I drive (M80 M73 M74 and M8) on to work are busy enough.
Motorists subsidising rail travellers? From a personal perspective I've got to say, hell yeah!
Funkycoldribena said:
Centurion07 said:
I've read this several times and still don't understand it.
Beats the st out of me.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.
grumbledoak said:
My view is unchanged: the sooner you Scottish are economically de-coupled from the rest of us the better.
Yeah, lets all pay for st we don't even want. Sensible policies for a happier Britain.
I'm not Scots. I'm half Irish half Italian and as well as living Scotland I've spent many years living and working in London, North Yorks, Co Durham, Cumbria, Northern Ireland and the Republic.Yeah, lets all pay for st we don't even want. Sensible policies for a happier Britain.
From this perspective I'd say the area this thread is most relevant to is London and the very congested South East.
grumbledoak said:
My view is unchanged: the sooner you Scottish are economically de-coupled from the rest of us the better.
Yeah, lets all pay for st we don't even want. Sensible policies for a happier Britain.
I disagree. Scotland is a nice place (except glasgow), and a united britain is economically stronger than just England. Yeah, lets all pay for st we don't even want. Sensible policies for a happier Britain.
I'm guessing from your overly abrupt and rude style you're from London - if you are, then surely you can see that the recipe for a happier on average Britain is simply to devolve the m25, and all of the miserable buggers that inhabit it?
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).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.
The French rail network takes a fair (fare?) old chunk out of their coffers, although I have to say I like their systems.
The problem is that railways are seen as a political problem and the solution is always dependent on who is in power.
Some of the money going into the high speed link to some place north of Paddington, or all of it, could usefully be diverted into making the current system viable.
The French rail network takes a fair (fare?) old chunk out of their coffers, although I have to say I like their systems.
The problem is that railways are seen as a political problem and the solution is always dependent on who is in power.
Some of the money going into the high speed link to some place north of Paddington, or all of it, could usefully be diverted into making the current system viable.
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.Derek Smith said:
The problem is that railways are seen as a political problem and the solution is always dependent on who is in power.
I think you are stating a position of 20 years ago rather than the position in 2014. Rail passenger figures are at their highest since the 1920s (no, I don't know why either ), a lot of freight is returning to rail, and all of the three major parties are generally in favour of railways these daysDerek Smith said:
Some of the money going into the high speed link to some place north of Paddington, or all of it, could usefully be diverted into making the current system viable.
Money, lots of it, is going into rail investment throughout the country. Just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head:Electrification of the Paddington to Bristol and South Wales lines
Electrification of the trans-Pennine route Manchester to Leeds
Re-laying and reopening of the Borders line in Scotland between Edinburgh & Galashiels
New higher-powered freight locomotives
New flyovers reducing conflicting movements and increasing track capacity at Hitchin, Doncaster and Reading
HS2 is just the icing on the cake
If we don't keep the cost of pubic transport (buses and trains) down, then less people will be inclined to use it, and will use Roads which are Full.
Which is why the roads are full.
I currently have to travel From L37 (Formby) to HP2 (Hemel Hempstead) for paid work of a freelance nature. It's a six month contract and so I travel down Monday and Back on Friday.
By very careful selection of train travel I have to Drive to Runcorn, pay through the nose to park, because I can't go from my local station as I wouldn't arrive early enough.
Total Cheapest Advance ticket combination works out at £130 plus £40 to park.
Verses 400 miles at a diesel cost of £55
Travel time is more or less the same (as is the likelihood of delays) at 4 Hours door to door (plus or minus a bit)
That reminds me, I need to book tickets for next week, as I'm doing a lot of miles over the bank holiday and I'll need a rest from driving.
By the way HS2 is NOT about journey time, it's about freeing up capacity on existing routes so that more none intercity journeys can be made.
Which is why the roads are full.
I currently have to travel From L37 (Formby) to HP2 (Hemel Hempstead) for paid work of a freelance nature. It's a six month contract and so I travel down Monday and Back on Friday.
By very careful selection of train travel I have to Drive to Runcorn, pay through the nose to park, because I can't go from my local station as I wouldn't arrive early enough.
Total Cheapest Advance ticket combination works out at £130 plus £40 to park.
Verses 400 miles at a diesel cost of £55
Travel time is more or less the same (as is the likelihood of delays) at 4 Hours door to door (plus or minus a bit)
That reminds me, I need to book tickets for next week, as I'm doing a lot of miles over the bank holiday and I'll need a rest from driving.
By the way HS2 is NOT about journey time, it's about freeing up capacity on existing routes so that more none intercity journeys can be made.
Pit Pony said:
By the way HS2 is NOT about journey time, it's about freeing up capacity on existing routes so that more none intercity journeys can be made.
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.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.
But if your going to build a new line, you may aswell build a hs2 but does not mean you have to run it at max speed.The title isn't exactly news, is it? I have eaten fish & chips from newspapers stating the same...
Subsidies?
If I can manage to stagger 2 miles to my local rail station then I can get to Manchester for £4.20 return.
(Why stagger? Because it's impossible to park anywhere near the place after the morning rush hour, I'm unfit and there's no point just dumpng one's car arbitrarily in the street the best part of a mile away [due to 'local' parking restrictions]. Got to walk 2 miles back as well . I could get a taxi each way - £6 in all?)
Or I could drive to the next-nearest station (away from Manchester) which is 5 miles from home by road, pay a couple of quid to park in the local water company's car park then walk 10 minutes and pay £7.70 return - it's in the next county (not just further away from Manchester ), you see .
The price of an off-peak return almost doubles in 3 miles (20% of the total of my usual journey) of railway mileage - but cross-border between counties ... Travel within the same county and it's pennies; travel between counties and it's significantly more pennies .
Subsidies?
If I can manage to stagger 2 miles to my local rail station then I can get to Manchester for £4.20 return.
(Why stagger? Because it's impossible to park anywhere near the place after the morning rush hour, I'm unfit and there's no point just dumpng one's car arbitrarily in the street the best part of a mile away [due to 'local' parking restrictions]. Got to walk 2 miles back as well . I could get a taxi each way - £6 in all?)
Or I could drive to the next-nearest station (away from Manchester) which is 5 miles from home by road, pay a couple of quid to park in the local water company's car park then walk 10 minutes and pay £7.70 return - it's in the next county (not just further away from Manchester ), you see .
The price of an off-peak return almost doubles in 3 miles (20% of the total of my usual journey) of railway mileage - but cross-border between counties ... Travel within the same county and it's pennies; travel between counties and it's significantly more pennies .
This is why I don't get economics.
Fundamentally, if a railway system is being used halfway efficiently (i.e. not using a whole train to move a single person), to move a person on it requires fewer resources (by any meaningful definition of the term) than to do so by car. It should therefore, in any economic system that isn't hopelessly broken, cost less.
If, for example, as you say, fewer rail commuters would mean more congested motorways - surely that's part of the cost somewhere. Space is a resource, so either motorists get too much per pound, or rail commuters too little.
I suspect the better statement is "motorists and rail commuters and everyone else subsidises dodgy companies" - via a public sector that's every bit as wasteful with money as when it was maintaining things itself.
Fundamentally, if a railway system is being used halfway efficiently (i.e. not using a whole train to move a single person), to move a person on it requires fewer resources (by any meaningful definition of the term) than to do so by car. It should therefore, in any economic system that isn't hopelessly broken, cost less.
If, for example, as you say, fewer rail commuters would mean more congested motorways - surely that's part of the cost somewhere. Space is a resource, so either motorists get too much per pound, or rail commuters too little.
I suspect the better statement is "motorists and rail commuters and everyone else subsidises dodgy companies" - via a public sector that's every bit as wasteful with money as when it was maintaining things itself.
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
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff