But we DO subsidise the roads in at least two ways:
1. We pay taxes that go towards road maintenance. Even those who don't actually drive or never even leave their houses pay direct or indirect taxes that pay for the roads. How else do the roads get there in the first place, do you think?
2. The railway companies pay for everything: maintenance, repair, accident clear-up, safety measures, signage, even their own policing and a lot of other things, too. But road haulage and bus companies, for example, pay a one-off road fund licence for however many miles they cover. Beyond a certain mileage, they are effectively subsidised by lower-mileage road users, and are encouraged to cover higher mileages to keep the per-mile cost down. The same applies to the private motorist on a smaller scale. The railways, by comparison, pay the same per passenger mile for every passenger mile. The only difference, then, is that subsidies to the railways are visible. Subsidies on the roads are paid by individuals and are therefore hidden.
Here's an example of what I mean. If a lorry falls over or breaks down on the motorway, the cost of the delay caused to other road users is borne by the individuals in the queue, not the lorry company. So the people in the jam, many of whom will be losing money while they sit there listening to Steve Wright in the Afternoon, are effectively subsidising that haulage company at huge total cost - as if Steve Wright wasn't painful enough. On the other hand if a train is delayed significantly, passengers can get at least some of the cost of their journey back, or the railway company pays for an alternative service, at its own expense. It's not a perfect system, but it does cost money.
3. Road transport is subsidised through insurance, too. After a train crash the premiums paid by the railway industry go up. The cost is spread over a handful of companies at most, or is maybe borne by just the one. If you or I have a crash in our cars, the extra cost on premiums is spread out over millions of people. In effect, others subsidise my bad driving. Note: I am not advocating individual drivers being charged for the damage they cause. But at one million pounds per fatality, it might make some people think a little.
I don't actually mind subsidising either. Smaller private businesses without economies of scale would fail if they had to pay the full cost themselves, and our private sector economy in general would become even less competitive globally than it already is.
Oh dear, here comes the cutting and pasting.
Chris
|
ChrisR wrote:
> But we DO subsidise the roads in at least two ways:
>
> 1. We pay taxes that go towards road maintenance. Even those
> who don't actually drive or never even leave their houses pay
> direct or indirect taxes that pay for the roads. How else do
> the roads get there in the first place, do you think?
Car-riageway taxes on horse drawn car-riages?
And don't motorists ALSO pay ALL the direct and indirect taxes that everyone else pays?
We pay them, AND about £45 BILLION in EXTRA motoring taxes.
Around £5 billion (is it?) is spent on the roads (traffic calming, 24 hour bus lanes - where are the 24 hour buses?).
And around the same to subsidise public transport?
About to be doubled?
So fares are subsidised (effectively out of motoring taxes).
But motorists pay our taxes, their subsidies, and all that on top of our running costs.
Plus the economic costs of an inadequate road system (eg roads blocked by accidents with no alternative routes in existence).
And now we are to pay a congestion tax because the "road taxes" have been squandered.
> 2. The railway companies pay for everything: maintenance,
> repair, accident clear-up, safety measures, signage, even
> their own policing and a lot of other things, too...............
Does their insurance get billed for NHS costs of rail accidents?
And you may well be right that they pay for everything.
But they seem to use a lot of taxpayers money to do it with.
And want (need) more (plus profit).
I'll spare you any more cutting and pasting!
|
|
|
|
The wrote:
> (A whole load of the usual stuff) then:-
> > So why do we pay taxes to subsidise railways (£1 Million per
> carriage?!) and close off roads to cars?
Where do you get £1 million per carriage from?
> Whilst personally I believe that we should have a strategic
> rail (and canal) network, there are strong economic and
> environmental arguments for tarmacing over the rail-roads.
What are the enviromental arguments for tarmacing over the rail roads?. (This ignores the practical aspect that the West Coast Main line hereabouts occupies a considerably narrower strip of land than the adjacent A5- a single carriageway trunk road. How exactly do two lorries pass in Kilsby tunnel?)
Answers in short sentences, marks deducted for use of Hmmmmmm!!.
|
Simon Butterworth wrote:
>
> The wrote:
>
> > (A whole load of the usual stuff) then:-
>
> > So why do we pay taxes to subsidise railways
> > (£1 Million per carriage?!) and close off roads to cars?
>
> Where do you get £1 million per carriage from?
Rail firm to buy 700 new train carriages
> > Whilst personally I believe that we should have a strategic
> > rail (and canal) network, there are strong economic and
> > environmental arguments for tarmacing over the rail-roads.
>
> What are the enviromental arguments for tarmacing over the
> rail roads?. (This ignores the practical aspect that the West
> Coast Main line hereabouts occupies a considerably narrower
> strip of land than the adjacent A5- a single carriageway
> trunk road. How exactly do two lorries pass in Kilsby tunnel?)
>
> Answers in short sentences, marks deducted for use of
> Hmmmmmm!!.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
Trains don't use cats.
If cars can clean the exhausts of relatively light buses think what they'd do replacing heavy locos.
Railway companies ship their plant, equipment, trains even, around by road.
Why.
Is it more expensive, and they more dumb?
Pinched from another forum:
Newcastle High Level Bridge with two road tracks above two rail tracks - as it still exists today, a vital road in Newcastle. Furthermore, Stephenson's Britannia
tubular two track rail bridge across the Menai Strait was completed in 1850 for rail, burned out about 20 years ago, but was rebuilt as two lane road above rail. The UK, & abroad, is replete with examples of very high quality road built on twin track rail. The Oban - Fort William road now uses two rail bridges, and the piers of another (they were no more than twin track, might have been single). The North Devon Link Road, a modern (sometime in the 80s? - I worked on it's site investigation in 1972) high quality single two way carriageway road crosses the Bray Valley on a converted railway viaduct. Central Railway Link Route Road into Blackpool - "single 7.3 m wide two-way carriageway with 450 mm hard strips on top of existing railway embankment" which was 2 track. E Grinstead bypass?
People grossly underestimate the width of rail vehicles, and their permanent
way. You should be familiar with the fact that cars are easily transported on rail wagons. I've taken LandRovers on MotorRail, and you can easily open the door inside a closed wagon (so at least a foot of space either side inside the wagon), and there must be at least about 4 feet clearance outside of the offside to wagons on the next line, more clearance on the nearside.
Furthermore: "Of the routes still in use as railways the great majority, some
11000 km, have two tracks...". "The Dept of Transport provide us with a figure for the capacity of a road built on the formation of a two track railway. It is a category 3a 7.2 metre wide single carriageway road, and its capacity will be at the top end of the range given, 17000 vehicles per 16 hour day.
"There are some 4500 km of single track rail routes in use. these can be, and particularly in Powys have been, converted into very good 6 metre wide roads. There is nothing low grade about these: not long ago 5.5. metres was a standard width for trunk roads in parts of the country. I have taken a capacity of 5000 vehicles / day for this type of road". Photos show single track rail in Merioneth converted to two track road..............................
......................on so on, and so forth, etc, etc (covering multi track routes vs motorways etc).
|
The wrote:
(Link to news site re alleged subsidy of £1miliion per carriage to rail industry)
Since Govia run London commuter trains they will no doubt get some grant aid for the operation of these trains but there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the report or elsewhere to suggest they are a gift from HMG. However, even if they were rolling stock has an average life of thirty to fourty years. Covering 300 miles per day at a load factor of 50% that is a pretty good deal per passenger.
> >
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
>
> Trains don't use cats.
>
> If cars can clean the exhausts of relatively light buses
> think what they'd do replacing heavy locos.
A fair number of the heavy locos are electric. I do not know what emmission control gear modern diesel locos (so why are cats an issue) such as class 66 or 67 have but it will be state of the art. One of those locos can shift the same number of intermodal containers as thirty lorries
> Railway companies ship their plant, equipment, trains even,
> around by road.
>
> Why.
Horses for courses. some plant is flat backed by rail but other times it would obstruct faster traffic (not an issue on the roads!). Old scrap locos often go by road because once they are stripped of re usable equipment they may ride so high on their springs that they are out of guage on the railway.
As you say there are a few examples of railways bieng converted to roads, these are however isolated, and go well beyond "tarmacing over". The ex rail bridge out of Oban at Connell Ferry is IIRC single alternate working under the control of traffic lights. Double deck bridges as like the Menai and Newcastle examples are purpose built. Tunnels are the real obstruction, I have recently cycled through Kelmarsh Tunnel on the former double track line from Northampton to Market Harborough (now a cycleway) if lorries could pass at all they would be reduced to walking pace!
|
|
|
|
"There are even arguments that if water borne transport was assessed properly (aparently current figures are measures of the pollution generated while lying in port!) it would be one of the most environmentally unfriendly!"
Seems unlikely. A canal barge can carry more than an 18-wheeler but on about 1/20th the horsepower. About 1/10th the speed, admittedly, but with much more constant loading, the exhaust pollution has the potential to be much less. In practice, with some ancient hardware, this may not always be the case, but new barges would presumably be fitted with new engines. Other environmental impacts would be lower, too, and I'm just considering small inland boats - the economies of scale from larger vessels are better still.
|
J Bonington Jagworth wrote:
>
> "There are even arguments that if water borne transport was
> assessed properly (aparently current figures are measures of
> the pollution generated while lying in port!) it would be one
> of the most environmentally unfriendly!"
>
> Seems unlikely.
Just reporting the green argument.
Never (ever) claimed the greens were right!
|
If I were a serious green, I would probably be making the case you describe, as marine engines are not as tightly regulated as those for road transport, probably because an old Lister diesel putt-putting down a canal isn't normally regarded as an environmental threat.
However, if it became a major method of bulk transport again, I imagine that something would be done and, overall, the shift from road to waterway would be a Good Thing. Easy to switch to horse-drawn, too, if the Middle East blows up, although pollution might not be uppermost in our minds then...
|
J Bonington Jagworth wrote:
>
> < snip >shift from road to waterway would be a Good Thing. Easy to
> switch to horse-drawn, too, if the Middle East blows up,
> although pollution might not be uppermost in our minds then...
But it might be good for the roses!
|
|
|
|
|
