Road spending vs Rail spending.

[Bletchleyite]

Awaiting a large order of hydrogen/ battery units or a Swiss/ Austrian style electrification program ?

mods note - split from this thread

Awaiting a Government that hates public transport a bit less?

 

[A0wen]

Awaiting a Government that hates public transport a bit less?

For a government which supposedly "hates" public transport - a surprising amount of money has been spent on public transport in the last 3 years.

£ 18bn - 2019/2020
£ 27bn - 2020/2021
£ 25bn - 2021/2022

UK railway spending 2023 | Statista

Public spending on railways in the United Kingdom was approximately 25.9 billion British pounds in 2022/23, compared with 25.8 billion pounds in the previous year.

www.statista.com

Compare this to road spending over the same period

£ 11bn - 2019/2020
£ 13bn - 2020/2021
£ 12bn - 2021/2022

UK road spending 2023 | Statista

Public sector spending on roads in the United Kingdom was over 11.13 billion British pounds in 2022/23, a slight decrease when compared with the previous year.

www.statista.com

And motorists are a net contributor to the exchequer - the rail network is a net drain.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For a government which supposedly "hates" public transport - a surprising amount of money has been spent on public transport in the last 3 years.

Money isn't the only thing. If the Government was pro public transport, it would put serious investigation into finding a more efficient structure for the industry, which GBR almost certainly isn't, and then that money would buy more, or would be able to be reduced.

BR was incredibly efficient, for instance.

 

[43066]

For a government which supposedly "hates" public transport - a surprising amount of money has been spent on public transport in the last 3 years.

£ 18bn - 2019/2020
£ 27bn - 2020/2021
£ 25bn - 2021/2022

Meaningless in the abstract. How does that compare to spending per capita in comparable European countries?

And motorists are a net contributor to the exchequer - the rail network is a net drain.

Based on what? Does that include all externalised costs of motoring: policing, accidents, pollution etc.? If it really were a net drain, why do you think the government subsides it at all?

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

[A0wen]

Meaningless in the abstract. How does that compare to spending per capita in comparable European countries?

From 2017 - so a little old now, but pre-Covid, so a useful baseline

Infographic: Europe's Disparity In Railway Investment

This chart shows the level of investment in rail infrastructure per citizen in European countries in 2017.

www.statista.com

Puts the UK in a fairly favourable position.

Based on what? Does that include all externalised costs of motoring: policing, accidents, pollution etc.? If it really were a net drain, why do you think the government subsides it at all?

Well, motoring pollution is covered by the tax system in the way vehicles are taxed, the tax levied on fuel - an inefficient vehicle consumes more fuel ergo pays more tax. Unlike the rail industry which uses red diesel and therefore contributes nothing.

Policing costs - since policing is a general service which covers more than just roads policing it's difficult to separate for example roads policing is interlinked with things like tracking and capturing County Lines drug gangs.

Police spending in total is about £ 19bn.

Road fund licence raises about £ 7bn, fuel duty from motoring raises a further £ 28bn - so that's £ 35bn.

There are other taxes which motorists are paying as well - e.g. VAT on sales and servicing - all of that adds up.

 

[tomuk]

Meaningless in the abstract. How does that compare to spending per capita in comparable European countries?

Not really shows they spend more on railways than roads.

Based on what? Does that include all externalised costs of motoring: policing, accidents, pollution etc.? If it really were a net drain, why do you think the government subsides it at all?

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Do the figures for the railway include all the externalised costs? policing, accidents, pollution etc. Do the figures include all the externalised gains from roads such as economic activity?

If you really believe that the railways aren't a net drain than you are ignoring the evidence.

 

[yorksrob]

From 2017 - so a little old now, but pre-Covid, so a useful baseline

Infographic: Europe's Disparity In Railway Investment

This chart shows the level of investment in rail infrastructure per citizen in European countries in 2017.

www.statista.com

Puts the UK in a fairly favourable position.



Well, motoring pollution is covered by the tax system in the way vehicles are taxed, the tax levied on fuel - an inefficient vehicle consumes more fuel ergo pays more tax. Unlike the rail industry which uses red diesel and therefore contributes nothing.

Policing costs - since policing is a general service which covers more than just roads policing it's difficult to separate for example roads policing is interlinked with things like tracking and capturing County Lines drug gangs.

Police spending in total is about £ 19bn.

Road fund licence raises about £ 7bn, fuel duty from motoring raises a further £ 28bn - so that's £ 35bn.

There are other taxes which motorists are paying as well - e.g. VAT on sales and servicing - all of that adds up.

Infrastructure investment is generally on big projects.

What would be far more informative would be a comparison between countries of subsidy of day to day operations, ideally by population.

Not really shows they spend more on railways than roads.

Do the figures for the railway include all the externalised costs? policing, accidents, pollution etc. Do the figures include all the externalised gains from roads such as economic activity?

If you really believe that the railways aren't a net drain than you are ignoring the evidence.

Policing, accidents and pollution will be far higher for road than rail.

 

[tomuk]

Policing, accidents and pollution will be far higher for road than rail.

That might be the case but motorists provide multiple billions more in Tax revenues directly related to operating their vehicles than passengers pay in fares.

 

[Efini92]

For a government which supposedly "hates" public transport - a surprising amount of money has been spent on public transport in the last 3 years.

£ 18bn - 2019/2020
£ 27bn - 2020/2021
£ 25bn - 2021/2022

UK railway spending 2023 | Statista

Public spending on railways in the United Kingdom was approximately 25.9 billion British pounds in 2022/23, compared with 25.8 billion pounds in the previous year.

www.statista.com

Compare this to road spending over the same period

£ 11bn - 2019/2020
£ 13bn - 2020/2021
£ 12bn - 2021/2022

UK road spending 2023 | Statista

Public sector spending on roads in the United Kingdom was over 11.13 billion British pounds in 2022/23, a slight decrease when compared with the previous year.

www.statista.com

And motorists are a net contributor to the exchequer - the rail network is a net drain.

It would be interesting to see the figures for every year from 1955.

 

[geoffk]

Road fund licence raises about £ 7bn, fuel duty from motoring raises a further £ 28bn - so that's £ 35bn.

Erm....there's no such thing as a road fund licence. The hypothecation of vehicle excise duty was abolished in the 1930s.

 

[Starmill]

Well, motoring pollution is covered by the tax system in the way vehicles are taxed, the tax levied on fuel - an inefficient vehicle consumes more fuel ergo pays more tax. Unlike the rail industry which uses red diesel and therefore contributes nothing.

Erm, the full negative externalities of road vehicles, including everything from noise to air quality and water runoff to accidents aren't remotely covered by the taxes on fuel and vehicle registration. And that's before we consider the opportunity cost of land used for car parking or highways which could be used for more productive purposes.

 

[Llanigraham]

Road fund licence raises about £ 7bn,

There has been no "road fund licence" for many, many years.
All income goes into the Central Governemnt funds.

 

[muddythefish]

Taxes raised from motorists go into the general tax pot - to be spend how the government wishes. That doesn't mean the tax raised should be spent on roads

 

[A0wen]

Erm, the full negative externalities of road vehicles, including everything from noise to air quality and water runoff to accidents aren't remotely covered by the taxes on fuel and vehicle registration. And that's before we consider the opportunity cost of land used for car parking or highways which could be used for more productive purposes.

Similarly the cost of pollution, noise, air quality etc aren't remotely covered by the railways, particularly as they are subsidised rather than a contributor to the exchequer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Similarly the cost of pollution, noise, air quality etc aren't remotely covered by the railways, particularly as they are subsidised rather than a contributor to the exchequer.

The railway is a bad neighbour in some cases. Almost all of those cases appear to relate to one specific class of locomotive, the Class 68, which is unnecessarily noisy and really could do with a substantial redesign.

That aside, the railway's impact on those things is tiny compared to that caused by road transport, not least because most of the railway isn't near peoples' homes and places people hang around. A Class 158 on the Far North Line might chuck out a few fumes, but nobody is really anywhere near it to breathe them.

 

[A0wen]

There has been no "road fund licence" for many, many years.
All income goes into the Central Governemnt funds.

The term is used interchangeably e.g. https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/consu...uk-car-tax-work-and-how-much-will-it-cost-you

"Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) – also known as road tax, car tax, or the road fund licence "

The railway is a bad neighbour in some cases. Almost all of those cases appear to relate to one specific class of locomotive, the Class 68.

Noise isn't solely diesel trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The term is used interchangeably e.g. https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/consu...uk-car-tax-work-and-how-much-will-it-cost-you

"Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) – also known as road tax, car tax, or the road fund licence "

People use those legacy/slang terms, but it's important to note that there is no "road fund" so the latter one really shouldn't be used any more. I'm happy with the others.

Noise isn't solely diesel trains.

Unless you live next to the railway (and if it bothers you why on earth did you buy a house next to the railway, it's not like it hasn't been there longer than you've been alive in almost all cases?) the noise pollution impact of the railway is tiny.

In most cases, railways add to scenery, roads detract from it.

 

[A0wen]

In most cases, railways add to scenery, roads detract from it.

Oh, come off it.

If you take Lune Gorge, neither the railway nor the M6 have added to it.

If you're going to argue viaducts or bridges, then beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there are equally road bridges such as the Menai Suspension bridge which contribute just as much, if not more than their railway equivalent.

 

[Starmill]

Similarly the cost of pollution, noise, air quality etc aren't remotely covered by the railways, particularly as they are subsidised rather than a contributor to the exchequer.

Sure but the unit cost is insignificant, because railways can carry far more people than motorways? What's the point you're making?

It's like people who argue against HS2 because it will create noise and use a small amount of land that would otherwise be left to nature, while totally failing to understand that expanding motorway capacity would generate far, far more noise and use far more land.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh, come off it.

If you take Lune Gorge, neither the railway nor the M6 have added to it.

I'd certainly not say the railway detracts from it, whereas a 6-lane motorway does.

 

[Starmill]

People use those legacy/slang terms, but it's important to note that there is no "road fund" so the latter one really shouldn't be used any more. I'm happy with the others.

These days the tax has got almost nothing to do with the actual roads, and everything to do with the vehicles. About the only connection that's left is that you can still stop paying the tax by keeping the vehicle on private land permanently.

 

[RT4038]

Erm, the full negative externalities of road vehicles, including everything from noise to air quality and water runoff to accidents aren't remotely covered by the taxes on fuel and vehicle registration. And that's before we consider the opportunity cost of land used for car parking or highways which could be used for more productive purposes.

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.

 

[A0wen]

Sure but the unit cost is insignificant, because railways can carry far more people than motorways? What's the point you're making?

It's like people who argue against HS2 because it will create noise and use a small amount of land that would otherwise be left to nature, while totally failing to understand that expanding motorway capacity would generate far, far more noise and use far more land.

But with a network roughly 4 times the size of the motorway network, the rail network carries *far less* than the motorway network.

And it's debateable whether the rail network can carry more people than the motorways - because whilst you can run a train which seats 500 people, you have to space it so the next train is 'x' minutes behind, whereas the spacing required on the roads is much less.

 

[Starmill]

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.

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.

But with a network roughly 4 times the size of the motorway network, the rail network carries *far less* than the motorway network.

Why's that, is it because buses and trains aren't suited to those markets?

No, it's because we are all...

Awaiting a Government that hates public transport a bit less?

I'm so glad you agree with us.

 

[Broucek]

Wow, what a hilariously polarised debate!

Do we have a breakdown of how much of the public transport expenditure is on rail (used mostly by relatively affluent people) vs. buses?

 

[Starmill]

And it's debateable whether the rail network can carry more people than the motorways - because whilst you can run a train which seats 500 people, you have to space it so the next train is 'x' minutes behind, whereas the spacing required on the roads is much less.

Sorry, this is wrong. It's not debatable at all. It's easy to achieve the length and frequency to exceed three-lane motorway capacity and railways around the whole world do it every day. It will be achieved on day one from the opening of London Euston HS2 also.

 

[Mikey C]

Worth pointing out that the road network is also used by PUBLIC transport such as buses and scheduled coaches plus chartered coaches.

And indeed bicycles, ambulances, police, fire engines etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Worth pointing out that the road network is also used by PUBLIC transport such as buses and scheduled coaches plus chartered coaches.

And indeed bicycles, ambulances, police, fire engines etc.

All of which, outside London, are in a tiny minority of vehicles. The private car and commercial lorry and van are the majority users of the road network by a massive margin.

 

[Mikey C]

The reality is that the road spending boom, which created the main motorway network was over by the 90s. It was already on its last legs when Labour came in, in 1997 and cancelled nearly all of the programmes.

Yes there have been a few bypasses built since then, and some roads have been improved, but the same applies to the railways since the 90s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The reality is that the road spending boom, which created the main motorway network was over by the 90s. It was already on its last legs when Labour came in, in 1997 and cancelled nearly all of the programmes.

Yes there have been a few bypasses built since then, and some roads have been improved, but the same applies to the railways since the 90s.

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.