What could be achieved if we increased public subsidy of railways to levels like those in Austria?

[liam456]

Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-rail-plan-for-the-north-and-midlands.224967/

I wonder what level of rail investment we could get (or lowering of fares) if we increased public subsidy of railways to levels like those in Austria?

 

[Austriantrain]

In all seriousness, I wonder what level of rail investment we could get (or lowering of fares) if we increased public subsidy of railways to levels like those in Austria?

Surely, lots. But it is a legitimate political preference to limit public expenditure in certain sectors (imagine what the US could do railwise with the UK level of expenditure).

As such, in a democracy, there is no alternative than to live with it. If you want any different, you will have to convince a majority of the electorate (and quite frankly, not ever EUR that Austria puts into railways is well invested, IMHO).

 

[liam456]

Surely, lots. But it is a legitimate political preference to limit public expenditure in certain sectors (imagine what the US could do railwise with the UK level of expenditure).

As such, in a democracy, there is no alternative than to live with it. If you want any different, you will have to convince a majority of the electorate (and quite frankly, not ever EUR that Austria puts into railways is well invested, IMHO).

Absolutely, it's a given that there a million more important things that voters care about when they get to the ballot box before the railways. However, I can't imagine the average Austrian voter cares more about the level of public subsidy in the railways than the average British one, so how come? Is it just that the general political or civil service consensus on what is acceptable is lower here than in Austria?

 

[Austriantrain]

Absolutely, it's a given that there a million more important things that voters care about when they get to the ballot box before the railways. However, I can't imagine the average Austrian voter cares more about the level of public subsidy in the railways than the average British one, so how come? Is it just that the general political or civil service consensus on what is acceptable is lower here than in Austria?

I think it has less to do with railways (Austrians, unlike the Swiss, are not passionate about rail) than that in general, we tolerate (or even appreciate) higher amounts of taxation and public spending - across the board.

The Scandinavian countries are even more pronounced in this regard. Conversely, the US will be much, much lower on that scale than even the UK.

But I am getting OT so will stop here.

 

[Wolfie]

I think it has less to do with railways than that in general, we tolerate (or even appreciate) higher amounts of taxation and public spending - across the board.

The Scandinavian countries are even more pronounced in this regard. Conversely, the US will be much, much lower on that scale than even the UK.

But I am getting OT so will stop here.

It's a Thatcher legacy. People think that high quality public services are possible with low taxes.

 

[MattRat]

It's a Thatcher legacy. People think that high quality public services are possible with low taxes.

It's not just money, but how it's spent. They could, for example, spend less in the South to help benefit the North.....

 

[stephen rp]

I think it has less to do with railways (Austrians, unlike the Swiss, are not passionate about rail) than that in general, we tolerate (or even appreciate) higher amounts of taxation and public spending - across the board.

The Scandinavian countries are even more pronounced in this regard. Conversely, the US will be much, much lower on that scale than even the UK.

But I am getting OT so will stop here.

I think you're bang on topic. Brits want stuff but don't want to pay for it. Which is probably why the current government's magical thinking is popular with the electorate.

 

[21C101]

I think you're bang on topic. Brits want stuff but don't want to pay for it. Which is probably why the current government's magical thinking is popular with the electorate.

A much greater proportion of freight traffic in the UK is maritime (coastal and international shipping).

For Austria the figure is close to zero and for Sweden etc. the vast majority of the population is in a small area so it is low too.

 

[Austriantrain]

A much greater proportion of freight traffic in the UK is maritime (coastal and international shipping).

For Austria the figure is close to zero

Actually not true, the Danube is an important freight artery.

But in general, you are completely correct of course.

 

[21C101]

Actually not true, the Danube is an important freight artery.

But in general, you are completely correct of course.

Thats why I said close to zero not zero for landlocked Austria. i just couldn't remember which one of Danube and Rhine it was

 

[HSTEd]

Austria's state rail spending runs to ~€3.3bn per annum, in a coutnry with a population under nine million.

We'd be talking three or four times current subsidy levels - about £24bn each and every year.

You would get an awful lot for that, if you could persuade people to spend that much long term.
Although to be honest you'd probably only be able to sustain it for a short while, so your best bet would be infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure.

Try to replace all the annoying, twisty or difficult to maintain sections of track.

 

[The Ham]

It's not just money, but how it's spent. They could, for example, spend less in the South to help benefit the North.....

They could, however if you wanted the best outcome for rail you'd need to spend more everywhere so that the expectation was that travel choices would be:
Walk
Cycle
Public transport
Shared access cars (taxi, car clubs, car hire)
Personal car ownership

The problem is too many start with personal car ownership.

For that to reverse there's a need to change the perceptions of people.

I was reading an article about a couple who live in the boundary of the ULEZ in London and own at least 3 vehicles and they were complaining that to turn one way out of their driveway meant costing them £12.50 when done in older vehicles.

Many would think that is outrageous and how dare the government do this to them. However that just highlights how skewed our thinking has got. They live in a city with some of the best public transport in the country (and probably fairly good in works standards too) and yet too many would feel sympathy (no reference to a need for health reasons and whilst reference is made to a van, implying work, and parking at a office - no mention of "needing" vehicles for work, as if that's so obvious that it's not worth saying overtly).

The better user of money could be argued that rather than paying an average of over £3,000/year on all the costs of car ownership it would likely be better if we paid a little more in taxes (say an average of £500, which would generate £16bn/year if applied to income tax payers) and then only had an average outgoing of £2,000 rather than £3,000 (i.e. still enough to own one car within a couple, if really needed).

That would be enough to build a basic metro system in 8 major cities each year (based on the announcement that Leeds' system would cost that much).

Obviously it would take a few years to deliver fully each, so there'll still be funding available for heavy rail and buses whilst developing the metro systems.

Overall we could be paying less overall (even though we'd be paying more taxes), the problem is that we've got the mindset that we should pay less taxes, even if it means paint for stuff that should be provided by the state. However in doing a chances are we end up paying more for those services as there's inefficiencies in the payment systems (it's cheaper for me to pay £100 once than £5 each time I do something and I do it 20 times, as there's a staff cost with each payment).

This is why paying for stuff to cover Central government cuts are always going to lead to lower quality of service.

 

[Sm5]

Austria's state rail spending runs to ~€3.3bn per annum, in a coutnry with a population under nine million.

We'd be talking three or four times current subsidy levels - about £24bn each and every year.

You would get an awful lot for that, if you could persuade people to spend that much long term.
Although to be honest you'd probably only be able to sustain it for a short while, so your best bet would be infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure.

Try to replace all the annoying, twisty or difficult to maintain sections of track.

Hmm with 69mn in the country, thats £350 per person.. or if loading it on to the employed only thats £750 a head.

Now those wanting more road maintenance, cycle schemes, healthcare, welfare, overseas aid, armed forces, elderly care, pension, education, culture … well thats £7500 of additional taxes.

The average UK salary is £29.6k , and pays £5,810 in tax, close to £500 a month, and has £1983 to pay the mortgage, feed the family, run the car.
if you take another £625 a month out of that paycheck, UK society will collapse, banks will collapse, business will collapse, but everything will be well funded and everyone in the country will be working for “The Party” as it will be the only employer in town, and they will be hiring big time to deliver from all that cash.

 

[HSTEd]

Hmm with 69mn in the country, thats £350 per person.. or if loading it on to the employed only thats £750 a head.

Now those wanting more road maintenance, cycle schemes, healthcare, welfare, overseas aid, armed forces, elderly care, pension, education, culture … well thats £7500 of additional taxes.

The average UK salary is £29.6k , and pays £5,810 in tax, close to £500 a month, and has £1983 to pay the mortgage, feed the family, run the car.
if you take another £625 a month out of that paycheck, UK society will collapse, banks will collapse, business will collapse, but everything will be well funded and everyone in the country will be working for “The Party” as it will be the only employer in town, and they will be hiring big time to deliver from all that cash.

What?

Where are you getting £625 per month from?

£24bn is something like 2.9% of Government spending, pre coronavirus.

 

[The Ham]

Where are you getting £625 per month from?

£24bn is something like 2.9% of Government spending, pre coronavirus.

I suspect that they've assumed 10 things at £24bn, however given that road maintenance would be able to fall (whilst buses will require more maintenance of the roads they run on there'll be on far fewer roads than the cars currently run on). Likewise there's a need for fewer cycle schemes as there'll be fewer roads which would need them.

With more walking and cycling, chances are there'll be less need for health interventions as we'll be healthier. Which could be an argument for not needing to increase by as much.

With more public transport charges are there'll be a need for staff to run the three services, that wouldn't likely result in an increase in social security, and with better public transport it would likely mean that fewer pensioners needed to own a car and so there'll be less need for such high state pensions as people's living costs could be lower.

Education may require some increase, but a 25% increase? Whilst armed forces spending would increase by 50% on the same measure.

Overseas aid, again at a current spend of £15bn increasing by £25bn would be a significant increase!

 

[Sm5]

What?

Where are you getting £625 per month from?

£24bn is something like 2.9% of Government spending, pre coronavirus.

Please read, before replying.

I suspect that they've assumed 10 things at £24bn, however given that road maintenance would be able to fall (whilst buses will require more maintenance of the roads they run on there'll be on far fewer roads than the cars currently run on). Likewise there's a need for fewer cycle schemes as there'll be fewer roads which would need them.


Education may require some increase, but a 25% increase? Whilst armed forces spending would increase by 50% on the same measure.

Overseas aid, again at a current spend of £15bn increasing by £25bn would be a significant increase!

agreed, but the point i’m making, is when you open the cookie jar for 1 child, the rest will come running, and all kids want the bigger bite than the one previous… the government has a lot of hungry kids.