Rail Spend is now 150% of Road Spend
Discussion
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-...
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-...
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.
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.
Now you are getting to the point, 65% of all rail journeys are in South East (tubes are TfL different budget).
Basically we are paying 36p / mile to keep South East going - very expensive way of moving people
Also not necessarily more roads (we have only built one in last 10 years M6 Toll), just more spend eg
Stop making out that drivers to the 'bad guys' and using that as an excuse to milk us for £34bn every year and saying that higher road usage taxing will reduce congestion, get it in to your thick heads that nobody with a choice drives in rush hour, people with a choice have another coffee and wait till the traffic dies down.
Stop making such as fuss about breakdowns and minor repairs with miles of cones and closing multiple lanes, countries like Japan and Germany close one lane, place a vehicle 100m back with lots of flashing lights and get on with it.
Provide free parking places at all motorway junctions (as in Germany) so people can meet up and carry on in one car
Provide free parking places at key junctions in cities, so that car sharing is made easier
Put more money into road works to provide 24 hour and weekend working.
Put recording camera's on all main motorways, so that serious / fatal crashes can be cleared quicker and not turned into 2 day crime scenes, use intelligent camera software to spot non movement of cars and signal operator
On congested motorways have dedicated light / heavy breakdown trucks, waiting on all junctions, with the same crash protection system as maintenance trucks, so that they can drive down motorways the wrong way on hard shoulder.
Change the four lane continuous upgrade approach to 1 mile before / after junctions as that is where the congestion occurs
With 4 lanes at at junctions, signal non exiting lorries / slow moving traffic into lane 2 and allow undertaking at speed in lane 1 for exiting traffic
Give lorries a graduated speed difference based on load weight, at present anything over 7.5tonnes is stuck at 56mph and the roads are blocked with lorries passing with only 0.5mph speed difference and taking a mile to manage it.
The only major new motorway built in the past 20 years is M6 toll road, which at £6 a go hardly anybody uses it, wonder why?
Basically we are paying 36p / mile to keep South East going - very expensive way of moving people
Also not necessarily more roads (we have only built one in last 10 years M6 Toll), just more spend eg
Stop making out that drivers to the 'bad guys' and using that as an excuse to milk us for £34bn every year and saying that higher road usage taxing will reduce congestion, get it in to your thick heads that nobody with a choice drives in rush hour, people with a choice have another coffee and wait till the traffic dies down.
Stop making such as fuss about breakdowns and minor repairs with miles of cones and closing multiple lanes, countries like Japan and Germany close one lane, place a vehicle 100m back with lots of flashing lights and get on with it.
Provide free parking places at all motorway junctions (as in Germany) so people can meet up and carry on in one car
Provide free parking places at key junctions in cities, so that car sharing is made easier
Put more money into road works to provide 24 hour and weekend working.
Put recording camera's on all main motorways, so that serious / fatal crashes can be cleared quicker and not turned into 2 day crime scenes, use intelligent camera software to spot non movement of cars and signal operator
On congested motorways have dedicated light / heavy breakdown trucks, waiting on all junctions, with the same crash protection system as maintenance trucks, so that they can drive down motorways the wrong way on hard shoulder.
Change the four lane continuous upgrade approach to 1 mile before / after junctions as that is where the congestion occurs
With 4 lanes at at junctions, signal non exiting lorries / slow moving traffic into lane 2 and allow undertaking at speed in lane 1 for exiting traffic
Give lorries a graduated speed difference based on load weight, at present anything over 7.5tonnes is stuck at 56mph and the roads are blocked with lorries passing with only 0.5mph speed difference and taking a mile to manage it.
The only major new motorway built in the past 20 years is M6 toll road, which at £6 a go hardly anybody uses it, wonder why?
LeoSayer said:
Charming.
And wrong.
I know a number of people that choose to drive in rush hour despite having viable and sometimes quicker alternatives such as walking, bus, tube and train.
The 'thick heads' are government / DfT, I pulled it from www.makerailpay.org.uk, but the choice I was inferring was 'time of day' for the people with no option for efficient public transport, ie anyone living away from of mass conurbation, without a convenient rail station and without a train / bus that goes anywhere where they work = most of working population, would rather not queue at rush hour. And wrong.
I know a number of people that choose to drive in rush hour despite having viable and sometimes quicker alternatives such as walking, bus, tube and train.
In general trains & buses are radial beasts to and from town centres, how many buses have you seen going through isolated industrial estates?
summary - public transport only really works in mass conurbations or if your home / work is on a route and round here (Warwickshire) that option is scarce.
SantaBarbara said:
The spend on Motorways has resulted in excessive disruption by too many roadworks.
Motorways were better before they tried to Improve them.
Most of the current spend is on that concrete central barrier and I think that is from EU as all over Belgium and Holland.Motorways were better before they tried to Improve them.
You are right roadworks take too long, spend more money and get 24hour / weekend working to speed them up
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.
[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
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
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+
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?
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
Lowtimer said:
That's not really correct. About half of UK rail fares are directly regulated by the state, They include most standard and saver return fares, as well as weekly season tickets. These are predominantly a feature of travel to/from London and other major city commuter routes which carry the most passengers.
The mechanism for increases in regulated fares is determined by the DfT (or other tendering authorities in Scotland and Wales) and is currently based on an inflation-linked formula.
On most operations TOCs have some flexibility to set some fares, but the overall levels of how much of the cost is met via the fare box versus the from the taxpayer is determined by the franchise specification issued by DfT and the other franchising bodies.
Since 2004 it has been consistent policy from both Labour and Conservative govts to increase the proportion of overall operating costs paid by the passenger and reduce the proportion coming from general taxation. This is the direct cause of above-inflation fares increases, which the DfT and Treasury were happy to implement. As long as passenger numbers continued to increase they saw it as a win:win.
On the largest contract UK rail contract, the operator has no exposure to fare revenue at all. All the fares revenue goes direct to the DfT, with the operator being paid a flat fee to provide the labour (in much the same way as the operators of TfL London buses don't see any of the fare revenue, just the contract fees).
Employee pay is in theory a matter between TOCs and the unions, though pay is also part of the three-cornered negotiation with DfT. If DfT requires TOCs to implement changes which the unions see as a bargaining chip (e.g. the introduction of trains where the doors are controlled by the drivers rather than the guards) then some concession elsewhere, including on pay, often has to be applied.
UK fares are 30% higher than comparable Euro countries, so they cant raise them much or would be rebellion. The £4bn government subsidy goes to TOC's and then straight to Network Rail, this makes up 2/3 of normal operating cost of £6bn but that is not enough so they have 'borrowed' £48bn extra to pay for 'projects'. NW is broke and set to overspend by about £5-8bn for foreseeable future with no way of ever paying back the 'loans'. The mechanism for increases in regulated fares is determined by the DfT (or other tendering authorities in Scotland and Wales) and is currently based on an inflation-linked formula.
On most operations TOCs have some flexibility to set some fares, but the overall levels of how much of the cost is met via the fare box versus the from the taxpayer is determined by the franchise specification issued by DfT and the other franchising bodies.
Since 2004 it has been consistent policy from both Labour and Conservative govts to increase the proportion of overall operating costs paid by the passenger and reduce the proportion coming from general taxation. This is the direct cause of above-inflation fares increases, which the DfT and Treasury were happy to implement. As long as passenger numbers continued to increase they saw it as a win:win.
On the largest contract UK rail contract, the operator has no exposure to fare revenue at all. All the fares revenue goes direct to the DfT, with the operator being paid a flat fee to provide the labour (in much the same way as the operators of TfL London buses don't see any of the fare revenue, just the contract fees).
Employee pay is in theory a matter between TOCs and the unions, though pay is also part of the three-cornered negotiation with DfT. If DfT requires TOCs to implement changes which the unions see as a bargaining chip (e.g. the introduction of trains where the doors are controlled by the drivers rather than the guards) then some concession elsewhere, including on pay, often has to be applied.
Edited by Lowtimer on Thursday 2nd November 18:22
These concessions have made a bloke who pushes a button when he see's a green light and then releases it when he see's a red being paid with OT £90k / annum, didn't they teach monkey's how to do something like that?
We passed a significant point in 2016 with public sector on average being paid more than private, the cost of government and publicly funded bodies is much to high and something will eventually have to give.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff