I don't think anyone thinks we shouldn't have a public road network to all but the most remote locations. The argument is whether we need a second transport system as extensive as the current railway.
Interesting comparison as the small remote locations are unlikely to generate the tax revenue to pay for their construction/upkeep...... even in these days of reduced highway maintenance.
Agreed. Especially as the bus could serve Newville which is two miles from the railway but didn't exist when it was built 150 years ago and go into Largeville town centre which is a mile from the station up a steep hill.
History tells us that replacing a closed branch line with a bus doesn't work. That was Beeching's solution and people just got a car rather than take the bus.
I certainly don't think that we should have a public road network (not least I'd be out of a job as I design roads), likewise I have no issue with there being changes to the existing rail network as long as any restriction is evaluated to ensure that it was actually beneficial to the country as a whole (i.e. didn't result in reduced tax take and higher benefits payments than it cost to retain the rail line).
It very much depends. Do tourists come by train? Would they still need to use rail to get to Urbancity and how many work there? Does the TOC cover their costs in running the trains (i.e. excluding most NR costs)? How much short is that NR costs shortfall? How much money would actually be spent on the road upgrades? Who would lose property for the road building (a few farmers, probably not much of an issue, but if it starts impacting houses that's not going to go down well)? Would the road upgrades result in more development (altering the nature of Smallville)?
However such changes are likely to be minor tinkering compared with what many think is needed.
It certainly won't impact on the £1bn of NR loan costs, where the only way to ensure that's covered is to have people using railways (the more the better)
I think there's a lot of looking down the wrong end of the telescope. We don't expect roads to make a profit but railways we do expect this?
There's a different way of looking at all this. The state takes a chunk of money (tax) from each of us every year, and in return, they provide essential public services. These services are about healthcare, access to other services via transport (road, rail, bus), education etc. Some of those services are costly to provide, so they need to be as efficient as reasonable within the boundary of the service being what is appropriate for the end user and the country as a whole [and many of them are not efficient or user-focused....]. In some cases, we also expect a "point of use" contribution- whether that be paying for prescriptions, paying for school trips or paying a fare on a bus/train. Honest conversations about responsibility vs rights and what core services should be provided and how (local or central) need to be had- something political parties are ALL VERY BAD at. Planning for demographic changes is required to be considered for efficiency to be achieved. Overall, the tax take vs the spend needs to balance and we want to get best societal value we can for each penny/pound spent.
BUT- that is balance overall. Not service by service. It's the difference between "output" and "outcome."
In that gap between "output" and "outcome" are all the extra revenues generated from the provision of these core services. For example, a good regular evening public transport system means more people out spending money in restaurants/pubs (increase tax). And if you doubt the value of things like that, then you need to see the GDP figures out today- apparently not as bad as predicted as a lot pf people went out to the pub to watch the World Cup.
What I'd like to see is a move away from the "profit" driver to other means of judging whether a service meets requirements. For all Blair is (rightly) criticized (and I despise him personally), he had the right idea with the "Best Value" programme replacing Compulsory Competitive Tendering in Local Government in the early 2000's. [The down side was that in later years, the Audit Commission was scrapped and the old adage of "what's easy to measure gets measured" (inevitably input and process costs) and the whole concept and importance of output/outcome was lost.]
The way to get people out of their cars is have a public-service oriented railway/integrated transport system so people take the train/tram/bus because it's the desirable option. Car ownership per head in Germany is higher than UK- but public transport use is higher for that reason. Yes, in that system you will on many routes run at a "loss" but overall the societal costs will balance and come down (this is a long-term thing too). British Rail had their heads around this in Sectorisation days, and in some cases history shows that the counter-intuitive approach works e.g. teh Valley Lines in the 1080's were saved by a Regional Manager who trialed increasing the service whilst decreasing fares (the opposite of the standard solution for a loss-making service). Usage soared and the Valley Lines became a well-used local network.
If we had a service orientation we could also have a proper discussion about things like a second person on the train- who could then be seen as a benefit for accessibility and general order/behaviour, which is desirable in service terms and improves ridership. Nor do I see it a problem that so many people "work" for a public sector as it's a better use of time and money than paying them welfare to do nothing.
We need to shift the discussion away from price to societal value. Longer-term, EVs are a really bad way of decarbonising. Trains on the other hand are simple to electrify (and I think we should be pragmatic and increase use of 3rd rail again).
Of course this is a pipe dream because aside from the obvious political andmedia issues, one big barrier to all this is the human desire to empire-build especially in the Civil Service (a MUCH strong role for LTAs and a removal of DfT power/micromanagement would be essential).
TPO
