Train subsidies. How much!

[eldar]

British trains are subsidised, no surprise.

According to the BBC and open university, the subsidy is 23p/passenger kilometer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01h7cf2#synopsis

The petrol cost of a car doing 17mpg is about 23p/km.

Please tell me this can not be true, that after some of the highest fares in Europe someone going by train from London to Leeds requires an addition £65 from the treasury.

[martin84]

This is old news. A report came out a couple of years ago which showed the Government loses money on each mile travelled by public transport, but gains roughly an 8p per mile profit on miles driven by car. Something like that.

[Chrisw666]

So in summary if we didn't subsidise public transport people would be faced with a use it or lose it choice, but the use of drivers as a cash cow could be reduced significantly due to the savings made.

The treasury using tax payers money to offer services that the tax payers are then forced to pay for if they wish to access them is as stupid and reckless as paying people to do nothing from birth to death is.

[martin84]

Chrisw666 said:

So in summary if we didn't subsidise public transport people would be faced with a use it or lose it choice, but the use of drivers as a cash cow could be reduced significantly due to the savings made.

The treasury using tax payers money to offer services that the tax payers are then forced to pay for if they wish to access them is as stupid and reckless as paying people to do nothing from birth to death is.

Train travel and bus travel is an inefficient, horribly expensive method of transport. Nationalising the railways didn't work, privatising them hasn't changed anything in that regard. If the Government pulled its subsidy, Train fares would skyrocket even further - or to put it another way, passengers would be charged what the service actually costs. Motorists have to pay the true cost of what they use - and a bit more - yet bus and train users are subsidised.

They throw money at it to encourage people to use public transport, not only has the billions not actually improved the service, but the 'green' arguments used to justify its spend also dont stack up.

[Chrisw666]

When the first round of central govt cuts to Local Authorities hit our council cut bus subsidies after 6pm Sunday - Thursday. While it has hurt some people, many hardly notice.

[martin84]

I dont keep up with what happens bus wise around here because I dont use them. I do think subsidising village buses is pretty pointless, nobody uses them anyway because they only come once a week and hiring an MPV would be cheaper and kinder to polar bears. I question the wisdom of living in the middle of nowhere if you dont have a vehicle.

Are we getting to a point where free bus passes for the over 65's may have to go? People didnt live to 80+ when they came in, we're not set up to give people 20 years free travel.

[.blue]

Here's the maths... the government subsidises railways by £5.2bn per year. In addition, passengers spend £6.2bn per year(1). In aggregate, 54.1bn passenger miles are traveled by rail each year (2). So the total cost of train travel is around 21p per mile.

Car travel costs around 15p per mile and that takes into account negative externalities (i.e. the cost to others from the pollution your car makes) because most of the cost is road tax, fuel duty, insurance premium (which the govt. also taxes) etc. which can be used to correct the externality.

The total length of all major roads (A, B and motorway) in the UK is 32,000 miles.

Therefore if the government used the rail subsidy on roads, it would be able to spend £162,500 per mile of road in the UK. That would improve and expand roads and more than compensate for an increase in cars from a closure of rail services. Furthermore, the increase in number of motorists would increase the government's tax bill. This could be used to instead offer incentives for cars to become greener.

End result: a green and clean future which doesn't require us to sacrifice the benefits of private transport.

Sources:
(1)http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/19/rail-train-tax-fares-hammond
(2)http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.2026


Anyway, back to revision I go... (PS written in a formal tone as I originally did this to send to a car-hating, public transport fan-boy; therefore no mention of petrolheadism, the fun of driving etc.)

[XitUp]

Don't we spend more public money on them now that they are privatised (and thus stter/more expensive) than when we had British Rail?

[martin84]

.blue said:

Therefore if the government used the rail subsidy on roads, it would be able to spend £162,500 per mile of road in the UK.

Just a shame a motorway costs £23million a mile to construct.

[.blue]

martin84 said:

Just a shame a motorway costs £23million a mile to construct.

Yes but that would be to double the capacity (i.e. new armco/central reservation stuff, probably more machinery etc.). All we'd need to do is extend them by a lane or two. So that would be more like... er... £5 million per mile?

Better idea - just build more B-roads instead To be honest, once manufacturing has declined and the bankers have left, tourism will really be all there is.

Perfect

Also, that figure is astonishingly high - where's it from?

[eldar]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I live near the Workington line. I can nip to my local station, Braystones, and move back in time 50 years. I've never experienced more than one passenger getting on/off. At least you can park for free.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braystones_railway_st...

[Elroy Blue]

The railways are a mess. Yet the man who presided over this mess, Tom Winsor, a rail regulator, was the man chosen to 'modernise ' uk Police Forces. It's no surprise what an abortion he's making of it.

[martin84]

.blue said:

Also, that figure is astonishingly high - where's it from?

http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/documents/crs_463367.pdf

A letter response to a freedom of information request. I'm gathering the cost of the motorway in question is representative of the general cost of doing any motorway anywhere in the country.

[Claypole]

martin84 said:

.blue said:

Therefore if the government used the rail subsidy on roads, it would be able to spend £162,500 per mile of road in the UK.

Just a shame a motorway costs £23million a mile to construct.

So £22.5 million in backhanders and overpriced land purchages and .5 to actually pat down some MOT type 1 and a splash of tarmac that will only last a couple of years before needing digging up again?

That original figure is absolute bobbins. :-)

[GarryA]

XitUp said:

Don't we spend more public money on them now that they are privatised (and thus stter/more expensive) than when we had British Rail?

The reason we are in the st now is because under BR fck all got done, they were running the Victorians work into the ground, couple that with closed shop union antics and it was going nowhere.

[PaulMoor]

Claypole said:

So £22.5 million in backhanders and overpriced land purchages and .5 to actually pat down some MOT type 1 and a splash of tarmac that will only last a couple of years before needing digging up again?

That original figure is absolute bobbins. :-)

Motorway is not cheap to build at all. I heard a civil engineer say it was like building a sky scraper on it's side. £23 million is the cose of just the road.

[martin84]

Building a motorway isnt like building a normal road, you dont just slap some tarmac onto the ground. With a motorway you have to build the entire structure, the base. Putting tarmac on it is a minority cost.

[Isimmo]

To be fair, there was, historically, some almighty cock-ups with the privatisation process and this governmental burden is still at issue within the industry. They have decisions imposed and, like the MOD, changed, revised and modified 9 months + into a project. The west coast 140 mph upgrade (the franchise was sold to Virgin on the premise this was a given) was a classic example, as a lack of governmental understanding of the complexities of the industry and regulation allowed a franchise contract to be proffered to Virgin that was, ultimately, unachievable...Quite rightly, Virgin took the Governement to the cleaners when the 125mph max was decreed and Virgins revenue severely impacted by failed previous guarantees... And as private businesses this has an impact to profitability, which they will rightly, rigourously, defend. The resultant 'high frequency running' and 'integration' of additional coaches into the Pendelinos has also spiralled in cost through a lack of government understanding. Clearly, integrating brand new vehicles into early 2000 build technology with the ability to calculate tilt angle thrust, GPS and Belise Beacon position to speed and the trigger each coach into a pre-determined tilt angle requires software translation across not a couple of years, but a decade, and this is seriously complex when discussing the safety of train sets covering 2000 miles a day, every day, with capacity in excess of 800 souls.

Politics and trains do not mix... The answer lies in long franchises and reduced governmental tinkering and industry stability.

[Rovinghawk]

.blue said:

Car travel costs around 15p per mile

My 36mpg means about 17p per mile in fuel alone.

I think you need to review your figures.

RH

[Fox-]

eldar said:

The petrol cost of a car doing 17mpg is about 23p/km.

Wouldnt it be great if we lived in a world where the only cost of running a car was petrol? Shall we compare just the diesel cost of a train per passenger km as well to be equally useless and misleading?

A quick look at peoples profiles shows costs of around 50p a mile for running cars - including tyres, repairs, depreciation, etc etc.

I have no issue with rail subsidisies and enjoy supplementing my car use with train use. It keeps miles off my car and gives me a transport mix which makes it easier to justify not driving a diesel.