Road spending vs Rail spending.

[RT4038]

It's obviously not spurious. The point being made is that public transport has been deliberately withered in order to divert more resources towards private motoring. That's exactly the conclusion that you're presenting so I'm glad you agree.

That is a tall stretch of conclusion..... The population have voted with their feet towards private transport. Public transport has been withered to reflect the shrunken demand. Any resource diversion has been to cater for these market forces. Much like washing machines and public laundry/Launderette provision really......

 

[Starmill]

The population have voted with their feet towards private transport.

Have they? Or have the government decided to promote that option, and people simply do whatever is cheap and easy?

Public transport has been withered to reflect the shrunken demand.

Again, how do you know that rather than the supply has been reduced to the point where there is no demand?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is a tall stretch of conclusion..... The population have voted with their feet towards private transport. Public transport has been withered to reflect the shrunken demand. Any resource diversion has been to cater for these market forces.

Partly that's the convenience of the car, yes, but partly it's because of public transport being unacceptably poor.

The bus service in the vast majority of the UK outside London, for instance, is unacceptably poor.

Much like washing machines and public laundry/Launderette provision really......

It's not really like those, because there's really no reason at all to use one of those over a washing machine in your house, unless paying for a service wash (which you still can do, there are a load of online providers of that who will collect and deliver). There isn't really an environmental benefit (because machines last very well, are inherently repairable and the same water and electricity is used whether you do it at home or at a launderette), there isn't really a financial benefit (machines are cheap), and it doesn't really create jobs because launderettes have long been fully automatic. The only reason to want to use a launderette is if your machine is broken, if you live in a very small flat where there isn't room for a machine, or if you want to wash something unusually big like a quilt that won't fit your machine.

I suppose to be fair that tallies with bus services in somewhere like Milton Keynes where the service is so weak you'd only use it if you didn't drive (taxis are for getting home from the pub), but public transport doesn't have to be that poor, whereas you could encrust a launderette's machines with gold and it still wouldn't be better than a machine at home.

 

[Starmill]

Any resource diversion has been to cater for these market forces.

Roads aren't built, operated or priced based on market forces in this country. They never have been.

 

[Master29]

The country is on it's knees both with the rail and road networks because of years of neglect by successive governments. Talk about "how much has been spent" or "how much revenue earned" in either is of little point. Seriously, who cares whether expanding either is based on how much revenue it makes if we have a government that can't be bothered.

 

[JamesT]

And my personal observation is that (industrial strife aside) the roads, at least round here, are falling apart far worse than the railways are. Potholes everywhere. The A5 between MK and Towcester is worse than I've ever known it, some stretches are barely good for 20mph.

Perhaps the real answer here is that *all* public spending is too low because of the Tory obsession with low taxes at all costs. Taxes need to increase substantially so we can fund acceptable public services - I wouldn't even go as far as "good" - they just aren't acceptable at present in any context whatsoever. Roads, rail, NHS, bins, nothing at all is working properly, and it's all because of underfunding.

Government spending as a percentage of GDP is at historically high levels. If this is too low public spending, what does the correct level look like?

 

[Sm5]

BR was incredibly efficient, for instance.

i just fell off my chair reading that.

its friday that’ll put me in a good mood for the weekend.

Reminds me of the time Bush jr proposed Iraq style democracy to the rest of the mid-east and someone responded by throwing their shoes at him.

 

[HSTEd]

Government spending as a percentage of GDP is at historically high levels. If this is too low public spending, what does the correct level look like?

Government spending is sky high, but it largely dissapears into transfer payments rather than on productive capital accumulation.

Even leaving aside the huge and ultimately unsustainable state pension (with the triple lock), we see tens of billions blown on propping up an energy industry that has fallen apart because of the total collapse of energy policy at privatisation (and the insanity of the supposed 'market' we have now). Or we could look at a huge and ever climbing housing benefit bill that exists because the Government willfully refuses to get a grip on the housing shortage. There are several other examples.

Whilst such insane spending continues, the situation will continue to deteriorate.

 

[Master29]

Government spending as a percentage of GDP is at historically high levels. If this is too low public spending, what does the correct level look like?

It's historically high because of years of neglect and having to spend on botched rail and road networks.

 

[Fleetmaster]

If the railway had to endure the present funding model and general approach to roads, there would be outrage.

Potholes. No money at all. Absolute contempt for the motorist, and a casual disregard of the safety of motor and pedal cyclists and rural pedestrians.

Smart motorways. Absolute farce.

A1 dualing north of Newcastle. You'll get it when you get it. Which is NEVER. Use the train if you don't like it. Or not. We really don't care. The tracks, trains and stations on the competing railway are now one hundred percent state funded. The service is still entirely London skewed.

Want to build houses? Fine. Pay for the roads too. Don't question why we still expect and demand housing to be intrinsically linked to cul de sacs and link roads, bypasses and dual carriageways. Just do it.

Delivered a once in a generation strategically important bridge on time and on budget? Stand aside while the politicians take all the credit. Fail to reflect on recent history when said politicians are shown to be serial incompetents in all manner of transport projects.

Speed limits, pollution, vehicle design, traffic calming? Spend public money on whatever garbage that a newspaper, pressure group, lobbying group, nimby collective and other assorted nutjobs say you should, just as long as you follow the golden rule and ignore anything and everything that comes from professional consultants who use actual science.

 

[Sm5]

Government spending is sky high, but it largely dissapears into transfer payments rather than on productive capital accumulation.

Even leaving aside the huge and ultimately unsustainable state pension (with the triple lock), we see tens of billions blown on propping up an energy industry that has fallen apart because of the total collapse of energy policy at privatisation (and the insanity of the supposed 'market' we have now). There are several other examples.

Whilst such insane spending continues, the situation will continue to deteriorate.

I think if the government had not stepped in on energy last winter the economy could well be in a much grimmer place right now.

Dont forget they are reaping what they sow… energy taxes have never been higher, it was no gift, just a smokescreen. Fuel prices are no different, Fuel and Energy companies are just outsourced government tax collectors.

 

[HSTEd]

I think if the government had not stepped in on energy last winter the economy could well be in a much grimmer place right now.

They only had to step in because for the last 35 years the government has decided to outsource energy policy to its precious "market".

The privatised energy system was uniquely dependent on the goodwill of Putin and his predecessors because of the markets flight to low capital cost generating plant. Had the CEGB continued no such flight would have occurred.
The privatised energy "market" also has a fundamentally broken pricing mechanism which is why rising gas prices have driven electricity prices far higher than they should be.

 

[RT4038]

Have they? Or have the government decided to promote that option, and people simply do whatever is cheap and easy?

Yes they have - since the 1920s, getting more and more as the people got more affluent through the 50s, rising to a crescendo by the 90s to the present day where to many public transport is fairly irrelevant

Again, how do you know that rather than the supply has been reduced to the point where there is no demand?

It took the railways 30 years to adjust their network/offer to the loss of passengers to road transport in the 20s/30s, and the bus industry 20 years to meaningfully respond to the catastrophic loss of passengers in the 50s/60s. So I think that the reductions definitely followed the changes in demand rather than causing them. Yes the reduction in supply will have triggered some reduction in demand too, but provision cannot cannot be subsidised in aspic for ever just in case. Yes mistakes were made,plus the wartime spell and other macro issues didn't help the view of public transport much either.

Roads aren't built, operated or priced based on market forces in this country. They never have been.

The market as in political demand in this instance, by both individuals and businesses.

Partly that's the convenience of the car, yes, but partly it's because of public transport being unacceptably poor.

The bus service in the vast majority of the UK outside London, for instance, is unacceptably poor.

But it wasn't always quite like that - it has become so due to a massive reduction in demand, much of it in the 50s/60s/70s. Private transport simply released people from the tyranny of public transport timetables, operations and staff. This is not just a phenomenon of this country though.............

But we are where we are.

 

[Sm5]

If government spending on rail wasnt what it is, the UK would have a US style rail system.

The only reason I beleve spending on rail is what it is, is because the government knows we simply cannot have a US style road network, and thus subsidising rail as an alternative.

The question is how long can the govt go on bailing out railways and at what level for the long term.

The argument of environmental pollution declines with electric cars, so the green argument (and excuse to not invest in roads) declines too. The government will need to pull a new reason out of the excuse bucket soon.

of course if you listen to the BoE, then maybe investing in a horse and cart in our nostalgic post Brexit lifestyle is our future ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Government spending as a percentage of GDP is at historically high levels. If this is too low public spending, what does the correct level look like?

Costs have gone up for lots of reasons, so it'll need to be higher.

The correct level is one where quality public services are being provided; see Scandinavia or the Netherlands for an idea.

It's historically high because of years of neglect and having to spend on botched rail and road networks.

And because things have simply gone up in price. For instance fuel, which impacts absolutely everything.

i just fell off my chair reading that.

its friday that’ll put me in a good mood for the weekend.

Reminds me of the time Bush jr proposed Iraq style democracy to the rest of the mid-east and someone responded by throwing their shoes at him.

BR was quite efficient. It provided a lot on a very small subsidy when compared in real terms to now.

I'm not saying it couldn't be improved, but the railway at the moment is a grossly inefficient money pit, largely due to its incredibly complex structure.

But it wasn't always quite like that - it has become so due to a massive reduction in demand, much of it in the 50s/60s/70s. Private transport simply released people from the tyranny of public transport timetables, operations and staff. This is not just a phenomenon of this country though.............

Certainly the car reduced demand. But really there is still a decent market for quality public transport, primarily into urban areas. MK is an outlier, but driving into most town centres is grim.

The question is how long can the govt go on bailing out railways and at what level for the long term.

Subsidy of public transport isn't "bailing out", it's a conscious choice to fund something for a given outcome. It shouldn't be decided price-first, nor should any public service. The level of service should be decided and tax set accordingly. I've never heard, for example, of the NHS funding being called bailing out sick people.

 

[Sm5]

BR was quite efficient. It provided a lot on a very small subsidy when compared in real terms to now.

I'm not saying it couldn't be improved, but the railway at the moment is a grossly inefficient money pit, largely due to its incredibly complex structure.

999 BR Standards and 500 Type 2s too many disputes this… class 14, 17.. 500 too many shunters…

BR was but a middle man between Steelworks and the Austin Maxi production line.

I mean compared to SWR sending 442 from multi-million overhaul to scrap does take some beating… but I suspect some of those in the decision making graduated from the school of BReconomics

Anyone had Eurostar 3308 for haulage ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

999 BR Standards and 500 Type 2s too many disputes this… class 14, 17.. 500 too many shunters…

I mean compared to SWR sending 442 from multi-million overhaul to scrap does take some beating… but I suspect some of those in the decision making fraduated from the school of BEeconomics

I never said BR was perfect. It was just more efficent, cost to benefit, than the present structure, largely because the present structure involves so much management cost between the different organisations that BR didn't need.

 

[HSTEd]

I've often wondered about what it would cost to get saturation public transport within reach of the vast majority of the population.

You could, as a thought experiment, buy a hell of a lot for the ~£100bn a year cost of private motoring.

But it would probably require embrace of new technologies (automated operation and such), the existing railway would be a minor part of such a system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've often wondered about what it would cost to get saturation public transport within reach of the vast majority of the population.

You could, as a thought experiment, buy a hell of a lot for the ~£100bn a year cost of private motoring.

But it would probably require embrace of new technologies (automated operation and such), the existing railway would be a minor part of such a system.

I think getting sustainable transport to most of the urban population would be viable, it'd look a bit more Dutch and certainly include bicycles, e-bikes and park and ride service as well as public transport itself. Cars would still have a role, just a smaller and less harmful one.

 

[Sm5]

I think getting sustainable transport to most of the urban population would be viable, it'd look a bit more Dutch and certainly include bicycles, e-bikes and park and ride service as well as public transport itself. Cars would still have a role, just a smaller and less harmful one.

Dutch have advantage of space, flat lands and arent nostalgic about old buildings in the way.

Here in UK land is gold, rolling hills and truck drivers arent nostalgic about cyclists in the way.

 

[yorksrob]

But this is spurious. The rail network is nowhere near the size, or comprehensive coverage, as the road network. The rail network could not operate without the road network (either for getting staff and materials to it, or for the customers), but this is not true of the reverse. The overwhelming majority of trips made in this country could not be made entirely or at all on the rail network, but all can be made on the road network.

So a valid comparison can be between the costs (including externalities) of providing the rail network in its entirety with the costs (including externalities) of providing that incremental part of the road network and use that facilitate journeys that could be made by rail but are not [and that would have to take into account the additional cost of providing rail capacity to accommodate]. A comparison could also be done to calculate what the cost of expanding the road network (including externalities)[ less savings] would be if rail ceased to exist. But just comparing the current expenditure/costs (including externalities) between the two networks is just apples and oranges.

Whilst I do use the road network to reach the railway, I walk and therefore create a lot less pollution and wear on the road network than I would if I had to use the road all the way, in a car.

The railway makes the road network operate a lot more efficiently, precisely because it relieves those parts of the road network where demand would be much higher.

The road system couldn't operate efficiently without the railway system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Dutch have advantage of space, flat lands and arent nostalgic about old buildings in the way.

A lot of the UK is flat too. London largely is, bar parts of south London. All of East Anglia is. The West Lancashire plain is. South Manchester is.

In any case, e-bikes take away hills.

The latter is irrelevant. If you are willing to take away from cars, there is room on more or less every road for a segregated cycle facility and pavement. There seems to be rather a north-south divide on this too - the A59 from Aughton (just short of Ormskirk) most of the way to Aintree has proper segregation too, albeit without junction priority, with a wide cycle lane and a separate pavement, and that was done in the 70s. I seem to recall some of the A570 from Ormskirk to Southport does too. I recall being quite surprised as my childhood horizons widened that other places didn't too, it was just the norm to me when young.

Here in UK land is gold, rolling hills and truck drivers arent nostalgic about cyclists in the way.

Proper cycle faciilties don't only benefit cyclists, they also get them out of the way of motorists. It's a real win-win if you do it well so all cyclists will want to use them. Cyclists on the grid in MK are extremely rare, and when you do get them they're generally skilled road cyclists riding an expensive road bike fast, so you just treat them like a moped/scooter and overtake.

 

[RT4038]

Certainly the car reduced demand. But really there is still a decent market for quality public transport, primarily into urban areas. MK is an outlier, but driving into most town centres is grim.

Yes, there are some niche markets for quality public transport, primarily into urban areas. Driving into town centres can be grim, so we go to out of town shopping centres, buy on-line and work from home instead.

Subsidy of public transport isn't "bailing out", it's a conscious choice to fund something for a given outcome. It shouldn't be decided price-first, nor should any public service. The level of service should be decided and tax set accordingly. I've never heard, for example, of the NHS funding being called bailing out sick people.

But public transport is not seen as a public service by many - it is something to be endured and avoided as much as possible. People view the NHS differently - individually they cannot make themselves better, they need an expert (s). Public transport has a more convenient self service option.

 

[Meerkat]

Perhaps the real answer here is that *all* public spending is too low because of the Tory obsession with low taxes at all costs. Taxes need to increase substantially so we can fund acceptable public services - I wouldn't even go as far as "good" - they just aren't acceptable at present in any context whatsoever. Roads, rail, NHS, bins, nothing at all is working properly, and it's all because of underfunding.

Isn't the tax take currently higher than ever? And no one votes for more taxes, unless they are only taxes on somebody else.

 

[A0wen]

Public transport has been withered to reflect the shrunken demand. Any resource diversion has been to cater for these market forces. Much like washing machines and public laundry/Launderette provision really......

Again, how do you know that rather than the supply has been reduced to the point where there is no demand?

Take bus usage - it has been in freefall since the 1950s. I can remember in the mid 1980s ahead of deregulation my local town had 3 or 4 bus routes running around up until 11pm at night - there is *no way* those routes were even remotely remunerative.

When de-regulation came along, the NBC company, unsurprisingly, either withdrew the routes or didn't register them commercially. The County Council stepped in to provide a reduced service level which a local operator picked up and ran with minibuses - such was the lack of demand, even a 25 seat minibus was oversized.

Bus companies haven't withdrawn remunerative routes - why would they ? They want to maximise their revenue. The reality is the number of customers getting on many services was nowhere near enough to make them cover their costs. The likes of Stagecoach will look at a route in the round and maybe run a couple of early / late journeys which are marginal if it works operationally - but there's no gain to running empty buses around.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't the tax take currently higher than ever? And no one votes for more taxes, unless they are only taxes on somebody else.

This is the root of the attitude problem and is a right-wing view.

I am happy for more taxes on myself in return for proper quality public services. I am not the only one. Most voters for left-wing parties will think this way.

Taxes are not evil. Taxes are the contribution we make in a civilised society to ensure the key tenets of that society can be properly maintained. What's evil is people funnelling it off for their own purposes, and that seems to be very much (though not exclusively) a Tory pursuit.

Bus companies haven't withdrawn remunerative routes - why would they ? They want to maximise their revenue. The reality is the number of customers getting on many services was nowhere near enough to make them cover their costs. The likes of Stagecoach will look at a route in the round and maybe run a couple of early / late journeys which are marginal if it works operationally - but there's no gain to running empty buses around.

The Anruf-Sammel-Taxi concept sits in that space - a proven demand responsive transport concept that the Germans have done for years, and much more effective than the VIA schemes which seem to cost a fortune and benefit almost nobody. It means you can have a "bus" in the timetable that costs very little if nobody wants to use it.

But public transport is not seen as a public service by many - it is something to be endured and avoided as much as possible.

Only because it's largely rubbish.

It is possible to get people on-side to it. Virgin Trains was a very popular operation among almost everyone bar enthusiasts. Avanti West Coast by contrast is an utter joke. Is a lot of that the brand? Sure, but why not have a trusted brand on public transport if it increases usage? And much as I might (quite validly) criticise Merseyrail on relatively minor stuff like cleaning and hard seats on the 777s, people living in posh places like Aughton or Formby don't take the Rangie or the Jag to Liverpool, they go on the train because it's just better. They might drive to the station, but they won't drive into Liverpool, because why would you? Whereas people who live near the dross of a service* that is Northern are more likely to drive, and if all you've got is an Arriva bus service you pretty certainly will.

* Better than it was post-electrification but still sorely lacking.

 

[A0wen]

A lot of the UK is flat too. London largely is, bar parts of south London. All of East Anglia is. The West Lancashire plain is. South Manchester is.

Naturally you've visited East Anglia to make such a sweeping assertion ?

I lived in Ipswich for a year - and if you think that's "flat" then you really don't know what you're talking about. To help you out - there's an elevation map of Ipswich - it climbs about 50 metres ~150 feet in about 1 mile from the town centre.

It's similarly hilly when you head over towards Sudbury as the second attachment shows.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Naturally you've visited East Anglia to make such a sweeping assertion ?

I lived in Ipswich for a year - and if you think that's "flat" then you really don't know what you're talking about. To help you out - there's an elevation map of Ipswich - it climbs about 50 metres ~150 feet in about 1 mile from the town centre.

It's similarly hilly when you head over towards Sudbury as the second attachment shows.

Pointless argument.

The point is that a lot of the UK is flat or largely flat and thus suitable for cycling, and e-bikes basically remove hills.

 

[Starmill]

I think getting sustainable transport to most of the urban population would be viable, it'd look a bit more Dutch and certainly include bicycles, e-bikes and park and ride service as well as public transport itself. Cars would still have a role, just a smaller and less harmful one.

Exactly. Fourth fifths of us live in urban areas - all deserve to have good quality options for local rail, metro or bus, and for walking and cycling on dedicated infrastructure, separated from motor vehicles.

Nobody is arguing for taking away cars from people who live in a city and want to go on their weekend wild camping trip, or from people who can't walk far from their home to be able to access essential services like medical care. Hire cars, vans for work, and taxis will never just go away after all. EVs will still be around in the future to serve those important markets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nobody is arguing for taking away cars from people who live in a city and want to go on their weekend wild camping trip

Indeed, though it's of note that somewhere like the Lake District on a weekend and in school holidays is so busy it acts like an urban area, and as such there's scope to reduce car use there too, by way of stuff like accommodation taxes giving free public transport tickets like they do in Switzerland, and by cranking the price of parking right up so people choose to leave the car at the campsite even if, due to the amount of kit, it was the only sensible way to get there.

Stagecoach do pretty well with their commercial Lakeland operation and it is popular and well-promoted as well as surprisingly well integrated with rail - but imagine how good it could be if it got a decent subsidy from an accommodation tax or similar.

But in the end the only sensible mode of transport for the 25 inhabitants* of Little-Piddle-on-the-Wold is likely to be a much-maligned SUV (the 4 wheel drive will be useful in winter). But if they want to go into Bristol, the local station or bus park-and-ride is the place it needs to be parked, and taxation and the likes needs to drive that.

* Plus, to keep my branch-line phraseology going, a few dogs and bicycles, no doubt.