Rail Spend is now 150% of Road Spend
Discussion
Lowtimer said:
London within the M25 generates almost as much tax as the next 37 largest UK cities combined, and cannot exist on anything like its present scale without a massive rail-borne workforce commuting from dormitory towns.
Yes, it's an expensive way of moving people, but it's economically a crucial piece of expenditure.
Agreed ref London, but with unions pushing up all rail wages and rail construction over running budgets at every turn, it is a very expensive way of moving relatively (3%) few people around, maybe there should be a rethink, as transport has become London & SE focused with nearly £2000 / person in London with just £427 in North. Yes, it's an expensive way of moving people, but it's economically a crucial piece of expenditure.
Edited by Lowtimer on Monday 30th October 12:54
Basically any transport run by government (tube, rail, buses) ends up being very expensive, when compared to markets with competition on road, sea & air where competition has driven costs down year on year.
Whenever there is a big "we need to spend more on infrastructure" news story it's all about how great investing in the railways would be, but road spending is so often reported negatively, as "just generating more traffic" etc.
If the HS2 money was spent on roads we could all have our own gold motorway to work!
If the HS2 money was spent on roads we could all have our own gold motorway to work!
What the HS2 money should be spent on is (in part) railways, but in ways which also benefit the roads. Eliminating every level crossing by bridging and/or tunnelling, and renewing all the existing Victorian bridge and tunnel infrastructure, would:
a) reduce a lot of completely avoidable car-meets-train and pedestrian-meets-train fatalities, and non-fatal accidents which massively disrupt both road and rail services when they happen
b) greatly reduce road congestion in the morning and evening peaks around most market towns. A lot of main roads in and out of English towns south of about Birmingham are closed by level crossings around 50% of the time or more during peak times due to the number of trains now operating across the crossings. Tthere are hot spots in parts of Wales and Scotland too.
Yes, rail transport into London costs more than that which goes into the North per head of population, but it does much more for that money in terms of lengths of journey - I personally know many people daily-commuting journeys of between 70 and 150 miles, some as high as 200 miles e.g. York / London - and it brings it all back in tax, and then some.
It's fair to point out that rail is hideously expensive as an end-to-end system, with most of the cost being in the upkeep of the state-owned infrastructure (Network Rail), and if we were all starting new countries from a blank sheet of paper we probably would do different things altogether.
But we are where we are,
Cities always reflect their histoiric development unless they get completely bombed flat. The railway track-beds into London exist, and occupy very little land in relation to the number of passenger journeys they facilitate, They do more journeys direct into the centre, at higher speeds, for the square footage they occupy than road transport could using the same land footprint. And you can't just demolish entire swathes of the capital city to build vast new motorways direct into the centre, and nor is there any way of parking half a million more cars every day in the centre. So rail it has to be, for the foreseeable future.
a) reduce a lot of completely avoidable car-meets-train and pedestrian-meets-train fatalities, and non-fatal accidents which massively disrupt both road and rail services when they happen
b) greatly reduce road congestion in the morning and evening peaks around most market towns. A lot of main roads in and out of English towns south of about Birmingham are closed by level crossings around 50% of the time or more during peak times due to the number of trains now operating across the crossings. Tthere are hot spots in parts of Wales and Scotland too.
mshsrfc said:
it is a very expensive way of moving relatively (3%) few people around.
3% of the overall UK population, quite possibly, but that's irrelevant in teh context of large cities. Anything between 550,000 and 600,000 rail passengers arrive in London on a typical weekday. It's a high proportion of the London working population and includes a higher still proportion of the people doing the jobs which generate the highest tax revenue for teh UK economy.Yes, rail transport into London costs more than that which goes into the North per head of population, but it does much more for that money in terms of lengths of journey - I personally know many people daily-commuting journeys of between 70 and 150 miles, some as high as 200 miles e.g. York / London - and it brings it all back in tax, and then some.
It's fair to point out that rail is hideously expensive as an end-to-end system, with most of the cost being in the upkeep of the state-owned infrastructure (Network Rail), and if we were all starting new countries from a blank sheet of paper we probably would do different things altogether.
But we are where we are,
Cities always reflect their histoiric development unless they get completely bombed flat. The railway track-beds into London exist, and occupy very little land in relation to the number of passenger journeys they facilitate, They do more journeys direct into the centre, at higher speeds, for the square footage they occupy than road transport could using the same land footprint. And you can't just demolish entire swathes of the capital city to build vast new motorways direct into the centre, and nor is there any way of parking half a million more cars every day in the centre. So rail it has to be, for the foreseeable future.
Edited by Lowtimer on Tuesday 31st October 12:20
[quote=Lowtimer]
3% of the overall UK population, quite possibly, but that's irrelevant in teh context of large cities. Anything between 550,000 and 600,000 rail passengers arrive in London on a typical weekday. It's a high proportion of the London working population and includes a higher still proportion of the people doing the jobs which generate the highest tax revenue for teh UK economy.
Yes, rail transport into London costs more than that which goes into the North per head of population, but it does much more for that money in terms of lengths of journey - I personally know many people daily-commuting journeys of between 70 and 150 miles, some as high as 200 miles e.g. York / London - and it brings it all back in tax, and then some.
It's fair to point out that rail is hideously expensive as an end-to-end system, with most of the cost being in the upkeep of the state-owned infrastructure (Network Rail), and if we were all starting new countries from a blank sheet of paper we probably would do different things altogether.
But we are where we are,
Cities always reflect their histoiric development unless they get completely bombed flat. The railway track-beds into London exist, and occupy very little land in relation to the number of passenger journeys they facilitate, They do more journeys direct into the centre, at higher speeds, for the square footage they occupy than road transport could using the same land footprint. And you can't just demolish entire swathes of the capital city to build vast new motorways direct into the centre, and nor is there any way of parking half a million more cars every day in the centre. So rail it has to be, for the foreseeable future.
Agreed on a) & b) and yes the London is the business / government cash cow, but rail money is being spent in badly / wrong places eg GWR electrification 300% cost overruns or HS1 & HS2, passengers forecasts.
HS1 is still only up to half projected figures for 2010 and HS2 needs 300,000 / day to be cost viable and yet only 50 - 55,000 using it at present on HS2 stations and WCML is at present only at 56% of current capacity. I would think that travellers in SE who stand every day, might think their need is greater.
3% of the overall UK population, quite possibly, but that's irrelevant in teh context of large cities. Anything between 550,000 and 600,000 rail passengers arrive in London on a typical weekday. It's a high proportion of the London working population and includes a higher still proportion of the people doing the jobs which generate the highest tax revenue for teh UK economy.
Yes, rail transport into London costs more than that which goes into the North per head of population, but it does much more for that money in terms of lengths of journey - I personally know many people daily-commuting journeys of between 70 and 150 miles, some as high as 200 miles e.g. York / London - and it brings it all back in tax, and then some.
It's fair to point out that rail is hideously expensive as an end-to-end system, with most of the cost being in the upkeep of the state-owned infrastructure (Network Rail), and if we were all starting new countries from a blank sheet of paper we probably would do different things altogether.
But we are where we are,
Cities always reflect their histoiric development unless they get completely bombed flat. The railway track-beds into London exist, and occupy very little land in relation to the number of passenger journeys they facilitate, They do more journeys direct into the centre, at higher speeds, for the square footage they occupy than road transport could using the same land footprint. And you can't just demolish entire swathes of the capital city to build vast new motorways direct into the centre, and nor is there any way of parking half a million more cars every day in the centre. So rail it has to be, for the foreseeable future.
Agreed on a) & b) and yes the London is the business / government cash cow, but rail money is being spent in badly / wrong places eg GWR electrification 300% cost overruns or HS1 & HS2, passengers forecasts.
HS1 is still only up to half projected figures for 2010 and HS2 needs 300,000 / day to be cost viable and yet only 50 - 55,000 using it at present on HS2 stations and WCML is at present only at 56% of current capacity. I would think that travellers in SE who stand every day, might think their need is greater.
Lowtimer said:
HS2 is not popular at all in the overall public transport industry except with people who are expecting to make a lot of money off it.
If that is opinion of PTI, why are they not behind petion to Cancel HS2https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200793
We need to get goods and services moved, that needs good road infrastuture , more people should work from home and there should be tax incentives for people who choose to live close to their work, there should be investment in local tram and light rail
in towns and cities .. first thing to do is scrap HS2 and build a new east west motorway and 6 lanes each way on the M6 M1
instead ...
in towns and cities .. first thing to do is scrap HS2 and build a new east west motorway and 6 lanes each way on the M6 M1
instead ...
Edited by powerstroke on Wednesday 1st November 06:11
mshsrfc said:
Rail spend is £14.8bn this year, that is 36p / passenger mile, it might get a few people off the road, but at an eye watering cost.
Road spend is £10bn / year and works out at 3p / road mile, so rail spend has 12 x road spend / mile
Road taxes raise £50bn / year which means every road mile is taxed 13p.
It cannot be right that of the population are subsiding the 3% that use rail, spend more on roads and their might be less congestion.
The University of Dresden did a study which puts the road figure at ~£50bn when external factors are accounted for. E.g. use of the emergency services, long term care after accidents, etc.Road spend is £10bn / year and works out at 3p / road mile, so rail spend has 12 x road spend / mile
Road taxes raise £50bn / year which means every road mile is taxed 13p.
It cannot be right that of the population are subsiding the 3% that use rail, spend more on roads and their might be less congestion.
I'm not sure I agree with all of their findings, however I think it is likely that the true figure is much much higher than the £10bn you quote.
mshsrfc said:
Agreed ref London, but with unions pushing up all rail wages and rail construction over running budgets at every turn, it is a very expensive way of moving relatively (3%) few people around, maybe there should be a rethink, as transport has become London & SE focused with nearly £2000 / person in London with just £427 in North.
Basically any transport run by government (tube, rail, buses) ends up being very expensive, when compared to markets with competition on road, sea & air where competition has driven costs down year on year.
In what way are the unions pushing up wages?Basically any transport run by government (tube, rail, buses) ends up being very expensive, when compared to markets with competition on road, sea & air where competition has driven costs down year on year.
gooner1 said:
In what way are the unions pushing up wages?
£90k / annum for 4 + 1 days SE rail driver £55k / annum for tube driver
lorry driver £25 - £35k and he / she has to steer
bus driver £30k and he / she has to steer and close the doors
Edited by mshsrfc on Wednesday 1st November 14:28
mshsrfc said:
£90k / annum for 4 + 1 days SE rail driver
£55k / annum for tube driver
lorry driver £25 - £35k and he / she has to steer
bus driver £30k and he / she has to steer and close the doors
Ah, your talking about Aslef and the TOC's., who negotiate Train Drivers wages.£55k / annum for tube driver
lorry driver £25 - £35k and he / she has to steer
bus driver £30k and he / she has to steer and close the doors
Edited by mshsrfc on Wednesday 1st November 14:28
Not sure which Union is involved with Tube drivers but not unclear on how they affect Highways budget.
What does lorry and bus drivers wages have to do with Railway wages., what's your occupation and income per annum?
gooner1 said:
mshsrfc said:
£90k / annum for 4 + 1 days SE rail driver
£55k / annum for tube driver
lorry driver £25 - £35k and he / she has to steer
bus driver £30k and he / she has to steer and close the doors
Ah, your talking about Aslef and the TOC's., who negotiate Train Drivers wages.£55k / annum for tube driver
lorry driver £25 - £35k and he / she has to steer
bus driver £30k and he / she has to steer and close the doors
Edited by mshsrfc on Wednesday 1st November 14:28
Not sure which Union is involved with Tube drivers but not unclear on how they affect Highways budget.
What does lorry and bus drivers wages have to do with Railway wages., what's your occupation and income per annum?
other professional drivers. These wages are the high point across rail industry, but show unions negotiating
with government controlled departments force prices up across industry.
Software Manager £40k+
mshsrfc said:
Sign this petition NOW, rail spending is out of control.
Rail spend is now 150% of road spending, they government is really taking the p*ss out of road users
https://www.change.org/p/chris-grayling-make-rail-...
Why are you complaining about this?Rail spend is now 150% of road spending, they government is really taking the p*ss out of road users
https://www.change.org/p/chris-grayling-make-rail-...
SantaBarbara said:
mshsrfc said:
Sign this petition NOW, rail spending is out of control.
Rail spend is now 150% of road spending, they government is really taking the p*ss out of road users
https://www.change.org/p/chris-grayling-make-rail-...
Why are you complaining about this?Rail spend is now 150% of road spending, they government is really taking the p*ss out of road users
https://www.change.org/p/chris-grayling-make-rail-...
Road spending £10bn to serve 100% of population and 250,000 of road = 3p / mile spending (+ 13p mile of tax)
Rail is a VERY expensive way of moving relatively few people and due to costs
road users are now second class citizens - see more at www.makerailpay.org.uk
dhutch said:
I really travelling by rail.
From my house to my current partners takes 1h30 at this time of night, but on a Friday it takes 2-3hrs and I can get there by train in half that, winding down from the week, rather than getting wound up by the traffic.
Smashing.
Daniel
Good for you, enjoy, we all really love subsidising you 36p / mileFrom my house to my current partners takes 1h30 at this time of night, but on a Friday it takes 2-3hrs and I can get there by train in half that, winding down from the week, rather than getting wound up by the traffic.
Smashing.
Daniel
Rail is very good if a) you can afford it b) it goes from where u r to where u want to go
Let me guess either you or GF lives in a city?
You're still not taking into account that rail users pay much higher than average levels of income and other taxes, and that the businesses they commute to enable pay a vast chunk more.
That website has some fair points in it but also some ludicrous ones. This, for example, is completely risible:
"they [buses] could easily change to hydrogen or hydrogen fuel cell = zero pollution"
Buses and coaches in the UK burn 1.2 million tons of diesel a year. There is absolutely no prospect of a hydrogen supply and distribution chain arising which can substitute that in the foreseeable future. Hydrogen production on a massive scale is in any case itself a non-trivial task with its own environmental impacts.
That website has some fair points in it but also some ludicrous ones. This, for example, is completely risible:
"they [buses] could easily change to hydrogen or hydrogen fuel cell = zero pollution"
Buses and coaches in the UK burn 1.2 million tons of diesel a year. There is absolutely no prospect of a hydrogen supply and distribution chain arising which can substitute that in the foreseeable future. Hydrogen production on a massive scale is in any case itself a non-trivial task with its own environmental impacts.
Edited by Lowtimer on Thursday 2nd November 09:16
Lowtimer said:
You're still not taking into account that rail users pay much higher than average levels of income and other taxes, and that the businesses they commute to enable pay a vast chunk more.
That website has some fair points in it but also some ludicrous ones. This, for example, is completely risible:
"they [buses] could easily change to hydrogen or hydrogen fuel cell = zero pollution"
I agreed with you (above) that London is the cash cow, but do the math. That website has some fair points in it but also some ludicrous ones. This, for example, is completely risible:
"they [buses] could easily change to hydrogen or hydrogen fuel cell = zero pollution"
Rail 36p / mile v roads 3p mile
Road taxes another 13p mile = 49p v 3p = 16x
Should rail get 16 times more support than road and as 65% of all rail journeys are in SE are you saying London et al
deserve 16 times more money. As I said rail is a very expensive way of moving people
Ref Hydrogen - I need a bit bit more detail as to it's risibility. At point of use - you burn hydrogen you get water ???
Edited by mshsrfc on Thursday 2nd November 09:21
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff