From 2017 - so a little old now, but pre-Covid, so a useful baseline
This has been discredited by others as it reflects infrastructure spending - notably at a time during the building of Crossrail which was Europe’s largest construction project for a time.
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.
So we are still none the wiser as to whether that adds up to the externalised costs. Clearly you don’t know and are just assuming it does.
Not really shows they spend more on railways than roads.
You’ve completely missed the point.
If you really believe that the railways aren't a net drain than you are ignoring the evidence.
What evidence? Can you point to some evidence that the railway is a “net drain” on the economy?
Ask yourself: why do you think the government (in this case one of the most right wing, small state, public-service-disinterested governments this country has ever had) continues to subsidise it?
I didn't say it was "unsuitable" but it is a steady climb and was refuting the absurd statement that East Anglia is "flat".
Seriously? I take it you’ve never been there?!
Public transport is for losers, an image helped along by the motor car manufacturers of course. With a car you are free as a bird.... If you don't believe me, try working with these people.
While this is clearly your attitude, I don’t believe it’s a general one.
That’s news to me and I live there!
It isn’t
representative of the UK, which I suspect is what you meant, and in transport terms rail use in particular is focussed on London and the south east with over 50% of journeys either being within london, or starting or ending there.
London is also a powerhouse of the national economy, and very much a net contributor to the rest of the country - hence why subsidising rail makes good sense even for taxpayers in rural areas who rarely-to-never use the train. Those taxpayers are increasingly in a minority, as discussed ad nauseam.
Nobody (other than a masochist) enjoys driving into a large town or city in the rush hour.
Who would be a London bus driver or a black cab driver!? Your entire day spent sitting in traffic!
Not every one lives in the city. I'm not sure how promoting urbanism is either consistent with equity or environmentalism.
But 80%+ of the population do, and that % is growing. As for your second sentence ULEZ, congestion charging to discourage private motoring and decent, affordable (at point of use) public transport are the obvious methods. London is the only place in the entire UK which really models this, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be replicated elsewhere.