Should some longer rural routes be sacrificed and the money spent elsewhere on the network?

[Bletchleyite]

It hasn’t made it that much easier, though. In terms of activity required (in development, planning and engineering terms), it has been broadly the same as the Borders line, to pick one examlple. And has cost more in real terms on a per km basis. Although much of the extra cost is down to geography and local economics.

And that it's double track rather than single?

 

[Bald Rick]

And that it's double track rather than single?

That is some of it, yes.

 

[al78]

Realistically, while you might be able to make buses more comfortable than they currently are, I doubt you'd ever be able to make buses as comfortable as a modern train can be:

Depends on the train journey. Some of the ones I use frequently in SE England can feel like being inside an earthquake simulator, and the ride quality of bus journeys isn't bad if they are on primary roads which tend to be in much better condition than minor rural roads. I've done a coach journey from Glasgow to London and the comfort compared favourably with a train at a much lower cost.

Settlements come and go, grow, decline and disappear. Roads brought change; railways similarly.
'Community'- the very concept changes- Thatcher 'no such thing as society'? Fishing commmunities, oil rigs ...
Urbanisation, working from home, ...? Canute demonstrated the futility of trying to hold back the tide- och AI?

I think working from home is gradually being reversed where possible. I can see this with the 08:10 Three Bridges to Cambridge service way busier now than when I started using it in 2022.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Depends on the train journey. Some of the ones I use frequently in SE England can feel like being inside an earthquake simulator, and the ride quality of bus journeys isn't bad if they are on primary roads which tend to be in much better condition than minor rural roads. I've done a coach journey from Glasgow to London and the comfort compared favourably with a train at a much lower cost.

Yes, of course there are old uncomfortable trains running around, just as there are new and pretty comfortable buses. But the point I was making is about what's possible. The maximum level of comfort that is possible on a bus (if you were willing to invest in the best available modern buses) is never going to match what is possible for a train (if you do likewise for trains).

A few days ago I made a couple of journeys on trains in Austria where the ride was so smooth that it felt a bit like I was floating along. And the noise level from the train inside the carriage was close to zero. You're never going to be able to get anything like that on a bus - at least with current levels of technology. Add to that that the very comfortable (but large) seats on those trains would never fit on a bus - unless you're fitting the bus out to carry no more than 20 or so people!

 

[35B]

Yes, of course there are old uncomfortable trains running around, just as there are new and pretty comfortable buses. But the point I was making is about what's possible. The maximum level of comfort that is possible on a bus (if you were willing to invest in the best available modern buses) is never going to match what is possible for a train (if you do likewise for trains).

A few days ago I made a couple of journeys on trains in Austria where the ride was so smooth that it felt a bit like I was floating along. And the noise level from the train inside the carriage was close to zero. You're never going to be able to get anything like that on a bus - at least with current levels of technology. Add to that that the very comfortable (but large) seats on those trains would never fit on a bus - unless you're fitting the bus out to carry no more than 20 or so people!

And just how much would fitting trains to that standard cost?

The comparison of options needs to be plausible, and in the examples we’re talking of, they involve BR era class 15x units well past their 30th birthdays.

 

[al78]

I don’t think expecting a couple of busses a day in each direction to let pensioners get to the next village to shop or visit the bank is expecting “urban public services”….

That is pretty much what they have in the Scottish highlands, the bus services are timed so that people in the remote villages can get to a large urban area and back in one day and with sufficient time to use the facilities of the city/town. Some very remote parts of Scotland used to be served with post buses, but they have now ceased due to low passenger numbers and a shift towards packages over mail.

Yes, of course there are old uncomfortable trains running around, just as there are new and pretty comfortable buses. But the point I was making is about what's possible. The maximum level of comfort that is possible on a bus (if you were willing to invest in the best available modern buses) is never going to match what is possible for a train (if you do likewise for trains).

A few days ago I made a couple of journeys on trains in Austria where the ride was so smooth that it felt a bit like I was floating along. And the noise level from the train inside the carriage was close to zero. You're never going to be able to get anything like that on a bus - at least with current levels of technology. Add to that that the very comfortable (but large) seats on those trains would never fit on a bus - unless you're fitting the bus out to carry no more than 20 or so people!

I agree that in theory, if you could build a train for optimal comfort and a bus for optimal comfort and compare, the train would beat the bus. The train also has the advantage that you are more likely to be able to bring a bike on it if you need one for ongoing transport. In the UK, it is extremely unlikely we are going to ever get trains even approaching optimal comfort (or the best examples on the continent) so we are left with the status quo which is a bit of a lottery as to the comfort level, either by train or bus. Local bus journeys around my part of SE England tend to be uncomfortable due to the poor state of the roads and the rattly nature of some buses, fortunately I very rarely need to use bus services.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And just how much would fitting trains to that standard cost?

I doubt you could retro-fit existing older trains to that standard, but if we prioritised passenger comfort levels when ordering new units for other (busier, inter-urban) lines, and if we also moved towards standardising on just a few types of train nationally so lines like the Far North line get the same stock as most other regional lines (rather then the present situation where we seem to have dozens of micro-fleets), then you could end up over time with extremely comfortable trains on that line by default. With the bonus of possible cost-efficiencies due to the better standardisation and less custom design of fleets.

 

[Mikey C]

If a train goes from nowhere important to somewhere else not very important or busy, then it doesn't matter how comfortable it is, it won't be used very much.

 

[NCT]

The reality of financial constraints, the need to prioritise, and a preference for a steady workload for the industry, lines like the Far North are always more likely to get cast offs.

 

[The Ham]

I think you're trying to make excuses now It wouldn't cost that much compared to the revenue. To some approximation, all you'd need to do is allow charging authorities access to the information that I believe modern cars already record concerning where they are (and there would be beneficial side effects too: For example, you'd likely see a massive reduction in levels of crime that involve motor vehicles, because the police would immediately be able to tell which vehicles were involved in the crime).

Up until recently (i.e. before technology made it much easier) trying to build toll booths would have been vastly expensive.

Even TfL (using cameras) don't actually keep all that much, total net received about £110 million from receipts of £259 million from ULEZ and £233 million (there are other road charges) so at best less than 23%.

One of the reasons so many people drive is that motorists aren't charged for the external costs of driving: Society, including all the non-motorists, pay indirectly for those - and that distorts economic decision-making and resource allocation in favour of cars. Your 'solution' to this distortion appears to be to add a further market distortion by having rail users also not charged for any of the external costs of running the railways. Have you considered that a better solution would be for all transport users (motorists and rail passengers) to be correctly charged for the resources they use? I imagine that if we did that, we'd see a major shift towards public transport (and walking/cycling) anyway. (Which - trying to get this thread back on topic - may well result in an increase of usage of rural rail routes, so we wouldn't be discussing closing them)

Until there's a serious suggestion for road pricing, there's a question of which is likely to be politically more acceptable?

That's not an easy one to answer, however to have a reasonable discussion over the best way forwards it's worth asking the question, what does the public prefer, free to use public transport or further road changing and details of what that would look like.

Whilst they may mean further market distortion at least public transport would be on a more even footing with road travel.

Whilst it still wouldn't deal with the costs of too many cars, it may well reduce the overall number so the outcome is something better, even if it's not perfect.

I've never said that free public transport isn't without it's issues, but then nor is road charging. Ultimately, the point is that free public transport is probably better than the current situation where the use of public transport is discouraged but the use of the roads hardly is.

Err, no. Rail passenger revenue from fares is about £10 Bn/year. Bus passenger revenue adds £3 Bn/year. By comparison, entire DfT's entire spending is £44 Bn/year (https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/department-for-transport-overview-2023-24.pdf) so if you abolished rail fares, you'd have to increase the DfT's budget by nearly 25% just to stand still in transport provision. That is not affordable!

Using that logic, if an individual's fuel costs for their car increased their car ownership costs by 25% they'd need a 25% pay rise. In terms of overall government spending it would be no more than 3.2% (even that is assuming there's currently zero government spending on public transport).

Also, as I've said before there would be other cost savings (including from the DfT budget), and it's possible that the costs of running the railways would reduce.

For example you wouldn't need to retain all ticket office staff to still increase the number of staff on platforms, you wouldn't need any revenue protection staff, the gate line staff wouldn't be fixed in place, the IT costs would be lower (no need to have ticket sakes websites), much reduced transaction costs (due to far fewer transactions), etc.

Yes you'd need guards, and platform staff, but there could be savings.

Likewise without having to touch in and out on buses (let alone pay cash) there's the potential for time savings, as well as other savings (again transition costs).

The only reason I haven't brought that up is that I chose to focus on the economic principles of why free public transport is an awful idea. And there's a limit to how much I want to write in my posts!

The point was more the fact that normally such a suggestion would be put down by several people on cost grounds.

 

[Egg Centric]

Aside from the anti-social behaviour that often accompanies alcohol consumption, a lot of alcohol (especially beers etc.) smells absolutely awful to a non-drinker. And that smell can really travel in a rail carriage. Really not something that should be there if you want people to feel welcome and comfortable on trains.

Sorry, what? I've never heard of this. Am I the unusual one or is this a rare thing? I'd never smell an alcoholic beverage from a sensible distance (as opposed to, say, on a drinker's breath).

Only smell I can think of associated with drinks is that lovely malty smell you get in a distillery.

Anyway, drinking on a train is a great pleasure so aside from problem hooligan trains I'm totally against this.

 

[35B]

I doubt you could retro-fit existing older trains to that standard, but if we prioritised passenger comfort levels when ordering new units for other (busier, inter-urban) lines, and if we also moved towards standardising on just a few types of train nationally so lines like the Far North line get the same stock as most other regional lines (rather then the present situation where we seem to have dozens of micro-fleets), then you could end up over time with extremely comfortable trains on that line by default. With the bonus of possible cost-efficiencies due to the better standardisation and less custom design of fleets.

To get to what you describe would require a wholly separate approach to train procurement, which is not based on maximising capacity and minimising cost. Given the cost focus on your view of standardisation, the likelihood (as we see with the Fainsa seats infesting the network today) is that we would have standardisation without comfort.

 

[NCT]

Good governance is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

What could be more important than good governance? Is perpetual inefficiency and disequilibrium, and society lurching from one crisis to another preferable?

OK, if good governance is a means to the end of good societal outcomes, then good governance is at least necessary if not sufficient. Good governance cannot be bypassed or substituted.

Why is it unreasonable to attract a producer surplus in one place, and use it to offset producer deficits elsewhere? Most businesses have cash cows; products that for one reason or another generate disproportionate profit at a line item level.

Why should Croy, Falkirk and Polmont subsidise Milngavie, Ayrshire and Newton Mearns?

Densification as a market driven answer I have no problem with. It is densification as a matter of policy that raises political problems where people object to being "densified". This has happened in London because of limited alternative options, and because government policies have chosen to amplify economic growth in London rather than try to distribute it more evenly.

London is about the only city in England that's built correctly. North of the border it's Edinburgh. Note how Edinburgh sustains a prosperous low-car economy with mainly buses. On the other hand Glasgow due to misplaced post war policies became a city built for cars while having to sustain an extensive rail network struggling for market share. It's an inherently inefficient position. With economic growth and net zero being the most pressing issues, agglomeration and densification are not negotiable.

This leads to the point about where one lives being discretionary. That is true in that I may choose where I live (and did in moving from Orpington to Grantham). But where it is a compelled choice, it is not discretionary and comes with significant non-economic costs.

This puts cart before horse. There is merit in taking many things out of the Treasury, but the underlying issue has more to do with the over-intrusive approach of the Treasury. It is noticeable that other systems are less prone to extremes of spending feast and famine, and able to have sensible conversations about priorities without the British disease of feast/famine.

It's not just the UK Treasury, Scotland's finance ministry is just the same. Much of Europe is going through transport spending famine because everywhere is grappling the enormous change in the fiscal landscape caused by population aging. Transport is a non-statutory spending area and when famine hits transport is among the first thing that suffers (everyone is talking a good talk on expanding high-speed rail but money is not forthcoming). When there's a demographic induced expansion of the state you have to look for ways to shrink the state elsewhere.

 

[The Ham]

It's not just the UK Treasury, Scotland's finance ministry is just the same. Much of Europe is going through transport spending famine because everywhere is grappling the enormous change in the fiscal landscape caused by population aging. Transport is a non-statutory spending area and when famine hits transport is among the first thing that suffers (everyone is talking a good talk on expanding high-speed rail but money is not forthcoming). When there's a demographic induced expansion of the state you have to look for ways to shrink the state elsewhere.

The thing is with an aging population good public transport is essential.

Without it, you force older people to drive or into isolation, both can cause issues (for example the accident rate for those over 85 is very high, on a par with young male drivers).

Arguably if there was a good public transport network the amount people needed (although this wouldn't mean you could necessarily cut the state pension) in retirement could be lower as they would have to fund a car.

Where you could create savings is that if they are more active (even walking a short distance to a bus stop would help) it would likely keep them healthier for longer. Given health is a significant amount of government spending, anything which helps keep people healthy is a good thing.

Likewise, by there being fewer vehicles it could help those with breathing issues (especially given the potential to swap to electric buses faster than the general population could swap to EV's).

 

[yorksrob]

What could be more important than good governance? Is perpetual inefficiency and disequilibrium, and society lurching from one crisis to another preferable?

OK, if good governance is a means to the end of good societal outcomes, then good governance is at least necessary if not sufficient. Good governance cannot be bypassed or substituted.



Why should Croy, Falkirk and Polmont subsidise Milngavie, Ayrshire and Newton Mearns?



London is about the only city in England that's built correctly. North of the border it's Edinburgh. Note how Edinburgh sustains a prosperous low-car economy with mainly buses. On the other hand Glasgow due to misplaced post war policies became a city built for cars while having to sustain an extensive rail network struggling for market share. It's an inherently inefficient position. With economic growth and net zero being the most pressing issues, agglomeration and densification are not negotiable.



It's not just the UK Treasury, Scotland's finance ministry is just the same. Much of Europe is going through transport spending famine because everywhere is grappling the enormous change in the fiscal landscape caused by population aging. Transport is a non-statutory spending area and when famine hits transport is among the first thing that suffers (everyone is talking a good talk on expanding high-speed rail but money is not forthcoming). When there's a demographic induced expansion of the state you have to look for ways to shrink the state elsewhere.

It's one thing not to expect lots of shiny new goodies - quite another not to maintain the services we have.

 

[35B]

What could be more important than good governance? Is perpetual inefficiency and disequilibrium, and society lurching from one crisis to another preferable?

OK, if good governance is a means to the end of good societal outcomes, then good governance is at least necessary if not sufficient. Good governance cannot be bypassed or substituted.

Precisely - good governance can lead to a range of outcomes, which are based on political choices.

Why should Croy, Falkirk and Polmont subsidise Milngavie, Ayrshire and Newton Mearns?

The framing of your question presumes that network effects do not exist, and that the trade-offs represented here are invalid. That is a recipe for the atomisation of society, and denies the possibility of advantages accruing by offsetting those gains and losses. The question would be much more reasonable if framed in terms of scale.

London is about the only city in England that's built correctly. North of the border it's Edinburgh. Note how Edinburgh sustains a prosperous low-car economy with mainly buses. On the other hand Glasgow due to misplaced post war policies became a city built for cars while having to sustain an extensive rail network struggling for market share. It's an inherently inefficient position. With economic growth and net zero being the most pressing issues, agglomeration and densification are not negotiable.

Efficient is not the same as correct; history is littered with the carcasses (literal and metaphorical) of mechanistic views of how the world operates that leave no room for alternatives. My limited knowledge of Edinburgh and Glasgow suggests that you are overly kind to Edinburgh and unduly harsh to Glasgow. London, with which I am much more familiar, is dense in parts, but also extensive in others and sustains its public transport as a result of the very high level of economic activity in the centre, which drives very high volumes of travel - itself a source of problems in other ways.

It's not just the UK Treasury, Scotland's finance ministry is just the same. Much of Europe is going through transport spending famine because everywhere is grappling the enormous change in the fiscal landscape caused by population aging. Transport is a non-statutory spending area and when famine hits transport is among the first thing that suffers (everyone is talking a good talk on expanding high-speed rail but money is not forthcoming). When there's a demographic induced expansion of the state you have to look for ways to shrink the state elsewhere.

That is a very glass half-empty view, and disregards the range of policy options and political views elsewhere. That comes back to the question of politics, and governments needing to respond to popular views - and part of that is public transport making a case for itself as more than a distress purchase that people will only make under duress.

It is no coincidence that the London Underground, for over a century, has taken care to advertise itself as being a desirable option and shift the dial away from the drab vision of maximum densification.

 

[Meerkat]

The West Highland Extension probably costs very little to retain,

I’d like to know if that’s true. it might need less frequent maintenance but those teams spend a lot of time getting to where it’s needed. There always seems to be a lot of road-rail stuff knocking about, and a lot of sidings to keep them out of the way. Presumably keeping it open in the winter adds cost. And even the smallest land slip would involve workers travelling a fair way and lots of access issues.
Every time there is a major change - ie GSMR aerials, and soon their more numerous replacements - it will cost a lot for very few trains.

One of the reasons so many people drive is that motorists aren't charged for the external costs of driving:

Remind me how high the petrol duty is, and how many other things you have to pay an annual tax to use!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Remind me how high the petrol duty is, and how many other things you have to pay an annual tax to use!

Almost certainly not nearly enough to cover the external costs. Estimating the true value of external costs is difficult and to some extent subject to value judgements, but to give some idea of the research in the area, Dresden Technical University estimated that in the UK the external cost of driving cars in the UK was 60 Bn Euros in 2008. Or with the exchange rates of the time, £48 Bn. Add inflation since 2008 to that and you get £90 Bn/year today. (https://www.greens-efa.eu/legacy/fi...s/Costs_of_cars/The_true_costs_of_cars_EN.pdf. The UK figure is on page 34 of the report).

The Government gets about £25 Bn a year from fuel tax and about £8 Bn from Vehicle excise duties. That means the taxes motorists pay for owning and driving cars cover less than 40% of the harm they inflict on the country.

And that's even before you consider that petrol tax takes no account of how external costs differ between cities and countryside.

 

[BrianW]

Almost certainly not nearly enough to cover the external costs. Estimating the true value of external costs is difficult and to some extent subject to value judgements, but to give some idea of the research in the area, Dresden Technical University estimated that in the UK the external cost of driving cars in the UK was 60 Bn Euros in 2008. Or with the exchange rates of the time, £48 Bn. Add inflation since 2008 to that and you get £90 Bn/year today. (https://www.greens-efa.eu/legacy/fi...s/Costs_of_cars/The_true_costs_of_cars_EN.pdf. The UK figure is on page 34 of the report).

The Government gets about £25 Bn a year from fuel tax and about £8 Bn from Vehicle excise duties. That means the taxes motorists pay for owning and driving cars cover less than 40% of the harm they inflict on the country.

And that's even before you consider that petrol tax takes no account of how external costs differ between cities and countryside.

An excellent, and thought-provoking, response to a good question.

How much of 'our hard-earned money' is spent ('wasted'/ invested) in educating (other people's) kids, policing, taking to court, Imprisoning miscreants; providing health care (for other folk not taking care), 'defence of the realm'. ...
Everything costs money, hopefully from someone else's taxes! The alternative?

 

[Meerkat]

Almost certainly not nearly enough to cover the external costs. Estimating the true value of external costs is difficult and to some extent subject to value judgements, but to give some idea of the research in the area, Dresden Technical University estimated that in the UK the external cost of driving cars in the UK was 60 Bn Euros in 2008. Or with the exchange rates of the time, £48 Bn. Add inflation since 2008 to that and you get £90 Bn/year today. (https://www.greens-efa.eu/legacy/fi...s/Costs_of_cars/The_true_costs_of_cars_EN.pdf. The UK figure is on page 34 of the report).

The Government gets about £25 Bn a year from fuel tax and about £8 Bn from Vehicle excise duties. That means the taxes motorists pay for owning and driving cars cover less than 40% of the harm they inflict on the country.

And that's even before you consider that petrol tax takes no account of how external costs differ between cities and countryside.

That’s a lot of guesswork. Does it also include all the positive externalities?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That’s a lot of guesswork. Does it also include all the positive externalities?

It was however put together by academics - not by any interest group, and does appear reasonably rigorous.

Positive externalities - I'm assuming you mean, the benefit to the economy from the fact that people can get to work etc. Those would tend to be covered automatically in the form of reward to the driver: For example, the driver who is commuting to go to work will actually receive wages for their work, and will therefore have already taken that into account in their decision to make the journey. Also, the negative externalities we talk about for cars (pollution, noise, congestion, etc.) result specifically from the decision to use the car, and would not necessarily result from a decision to make the journey by some other means. But the positive externalities - the economic benefits of the journey, etc. would for the most part still arise however the journey is made.

 

[Mikey C]

It was however put together by academics - not by any interest group, and does appear reasonably rigorous.

Positive externalities - I'm assuming you mean, the benefit to the economy from the fact that people can get to work etc. Those would tend to be covered automatically in the form of reward to the driver: For example, the driver who is commuting to go to work will actually receive wages for their work, and will therefore have already taken that into account in their decision to make the journey. Also, the negative externalities we talk about for cars (pollution, noise, congestion, etc.) result specifically from the decision to use the car, and would not necessarily result from a decision to make the journey by some other means. But the positive externalities - the economic benefits of the journey, etc. would for the most part still arise however the journey is made.

Academics are never totally neutral.

The potential benefit to "society" might be if the employees and the economy are more productive by the use of cars, and thus grows faster as a result, generating more tax revenue to pay for hospitals, schools etc and indeed railways.

 

[Bald Rick]

Almost certainly not nearly enough to cover the external costs. Estimating the true value of external costs is difficult and to some extent subject to value judgements, but to give some idea of the research in the area, Dresden Technical University estimated that in the UK the external cost of driving cars in the UK was 60 Bn Euros in 2008. Or with the exchange rates of the time, £48 Bn. Add inflation since 2008 to that and you get £90 Bn/year today. (https://www.greens-efa.eu/legacy/fi...s/Costs_of_cars/The_true_costs_of_cars_EN.pdf. The UK figure is on page 34 of the report).

The Government gets about £25 Bn a year from fuel tax and about £8 Bn from Vehicle excise duties. That means the taxes motorists pay for owning and driving cars cover less than 40% of the harm they inflict on the country.

And that's even before you consider that petrol tax takes no account of how external costs differ between cities and countryside.

Don’t forget the VAT receipts on fuel (around £11bn pa) plus VAT on new cars (around £10bn pa) plus VAT on car repairs and servicing (around £6bn pa). And thats before we get to the taxes paid by those companies and individuals working in the industry.

 

[NCT]

Precisely - good governance can lead to a range of outcomes, which are based on political choices.

The framing of your question presumes that network effects do not exist, and that the trade-offs represented here are invalid. That is a recipe for the atomisation of society, and denies the possibility of advantages accruing by offsetting those gains and losses. The question would be much more reasonable if framed in terms of scale.

It's quite simple. One set of people are paying a lower fare / km and/or a lower seat occupancy ratio.

Things like Ayrshire and Inverclyde - they get a spike in loadings at Paisley Gilmour Street. These trains don't need to arrive with spare seats just so Paisley passengers can get a seat for a 10-minute journey.

In any case where a service group is making money, cutting service level could lose you more in marginal revenue than you save in marginal cost. This obviously wouldn't be the case for a service group with a recovery ratio of merely 50%.

Efficient is not the same as correct; history is littered with the carcasses (literal and metaphorical) of mechanistic views of how the world operates that leave no room for alternatives. My limited knowledge of Edinburgh and Glasgow suggests that you are overly kind to Edinburgh and unduly harsh to Glasgow. London, with which I am much more familiar, is dense in parts, but also extensive in others and sustains its public transport as a result of the very high level of economic activity in the centre, which drives very high volumes of travel - itself a source of problems in other ways.

That is a very glass half-empty view, and disregards the range of policy options and political views elsewhere. That comes back to the question of politics, and governments needing to respond to popular views - and part of that is public transport making a case for itself as more than a distress purchase that people will only make under duress.

It is no coincidence that the London Underground, for over a century, has taken care to advertise itself as being a desirable option and shift the dial away from the drab vision of maximum densification.

Don't be dramatic. London's density and ease (or lack thereof) of running a car is only in line with typical continental European cities. Public transport by default is not a distress purchase - it's mere hygiene. UK cities outside of London and Edinburgh are unusual in the extent to which they embraced American style suburbanisation and de-urbanisation and we are all paying for that mistake dearly. Glasgow was particularly bad but is slowly repairing itself. We are only talking returning our cities to European norms.

You talk about the range of policy options but you never spell those out. The public want to have their cake and eat it and it's the job of politicians to spell out and make the tough choices and not to encourage make-believe. That the majority of European countries are offering variations of the same theme of policy choices, and that suggests actual viable policies are limited. At the end of the day where is the money coming from? Scotland's income tax is already higher than the rest of the UK, and it's hitting its borrowing limits allowed under the constitutional arrangement. Even for sovereign governments the bond market will punish fiscal recklessness and even Trump is no exception.

What's in distress is Scotland's current railway. The high subsidy means there's no cash for modest enhancements - an annual subsidy reduction of just £100m a year will release enough cash for a significant programme of works. Right now uncertainty over rail decarbonisation is stalling the procurement of new EMUs - the 318s and 320s are working beyond their design life in degraded performance and the Class 380s and 385s are having to be spread thin in order to release units for Barrhead and East Kilbride. Frequency reduction and train length reduction is happening in distressed conditions - would have been better if such things could have been properly planned out in the first place.

 

[HighlandStorm]

I’d like to know if that’s true. it might need less frequent maintenance but those teams spend a lot of time getting to where it’s needed.

Presumably keeping it open in the winter adds cost.

Well for the WHL extension it’s low level and fairly coastal - in contrast to South of Fort William traversing the exposed expanse of Rannoch Moor inland at over 1000ft.

Every time there is a major change - ie GSMR aerials, and soon their more numerous replacements - it will cost a lot for very few trains.

There is no GSM-R on the WHL, Far North or Kyle lines. RETB carries voice and token data on the same channel and at a frequency that allows far fewer masts providing far wider geographic coverage than is possible with GSM cells.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The potential benefit to "society" might be if the employees and the economy are more productive by the use of cars, and thus grows faster as a result, generating more tax revenue to pay for hospitals, schools etc and indeed railways.

I think that would still be already accounted for: If the person driving becomes more productive by virtue of driving, then that will ultimately be reflected in them earning a high salary, and will therefore be factored into their decision to drive.

Don’t forget the VAT receipts on fuel (around £11bn pa) plus VAT on new cars (around £10bn pa) plus VAT on car repairs and servicing (around £6bn pa). And thats before we get to the taxes paid by those companies and individuals working in the industry.

Hmmm. I have to admit I'm not sure if it's correct to include those. VAT is charged on most things and is therefore more like a general taxation - it's not a specific thing that you only pay if you're driving. If the driver wasn't paying VAT for car-related things, they'd very likely be paying the same VAT on whatever else they chose to purchase with the money. Ditto other taxes paid by companies and individuals in the supply chain. My gut feeling is those taxes are therefore probably not relevant in this context [*], but thinking that through thoroughly requires more brainpower than I have this late at night

[*] The context being, whether motorists are paying the correct amount to cover all the actual net costs [to everyone] of driving and to ensure that motorists are therefore incentivised to make the economically efficient decision to drive only when total benefits are greater than total disbenefits.

 

[Bald Rick]

Hmmm. I have to admit I'm not sure if it's correct to include those. VAT is charged on most things and is therefore more like a general taxation - it's not a specific thing that you only pay if you're driving. If the driver wasn't paying VAT for car-related things, they'd very likely be paying the same VAT on whatever else they chose to purchase with the money. Ditto other taxes paid by companies and individuals in the supply chain. My gut feeling is those taxes are therefore probably not relevant in this context [*], but thinking that through thoroughly requires more brainpower than I have this late at night

Well, that is the thing isn’t it. If cars didn’t exist, then presumably people would be using oublic transpkrt a lot more (or not travelling at all), in which case the VAT receipts would be nothing, as there is no VAT on public tranpsort, nor on not travelling. It would be folly to suggest that they would have lots of spare cash instead of driving, as the economy would unquestionably be much smaller, and the taxpayer would be paying for a lot more public transport.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well, that is the thing isn’t it. If cars didn’t exist, then presumably people would be using oublic transpkrt a lot more (or not travelling at all), in which case the VAT receipts would be nothing, as there is no VAT on public tranpsort, nor on not travelling. It would be folly to suggest that they would have lots of spare cash instead of driving, as the economy would unquestionably be much smaller, and the taxpayer would be paying for a lot more public transport.

I don't believe the economy would be much smaller if cars didn't exist. In that scenario, our infrastructure and work + living choices would be much more determined by the need to be on public transport corridors, so you wouldn't see the kind of urban sprawl or retail parks that exist in the real World. Since everyone would be using public transport, we'd have a much more extensive rail/bus/tram network, and it would be probably be rather more efficient - buses and trains typically much fuller, and most local/regional/commuter trains being longer. And since a lot of the technology/research efforts that companies put into better cars would likely instead have gone into better public transport, you could probably expect a somewhat higher level of public transport technology - so it's plausible to guess that things like driverless trains/trams would be much more common. In terms of the impact on people's lives, decisions about where to live would be somewhat a more restricted, and transport options in rural locations would be harder, but that shouldn't prevent us from having broadly the same standard of living as we actually have today.

(To be clear, I'm not recommending a completely car-less World).

 

[cle]

Glasgow minus the M8 was an exceptionally well planned and handsome city, and inspired not only New York - but Melbourne, one of the highest functioning cities on earth. Especially in Victoriana - it does it better than most UK cities, although didn’t suffer the Blitz.

Better skyline, nicer Victorian inner suburbs (with vibey pubs) - trams intact, but then yes it loses things to terrible sprawl. That’s from when Australia leaned US. It’s as concentric as a tree’s age!

Edinburgh is just that much older, and with the topography, the classical density (and unfriendliness to cars) is guaranteed - although it is a bit of a bus hole.

 

[al78]

Remind me how high the petrol duty is, and how many other things you have to pay an annual tax to use!

Doesn't matter how high it is in absolute terms, motoring is cheap compared to most public transport unless you belong to one of the groups that can get concessionary or free fares.

For me to visit family, a 480 mile round trip:

Cost to drive: ~£70
Cost to go by train: ~£120

I'm off to Fort William this Sunday for a two week hiking trip:

Cost to drive: ~£200
Cost to go by train: £236.20

Going by train means sacrificing convenience and forking out for more public transport or taxis to get to places not practical to get to by foot or bicycle.

I used to be able to get advance tickets on many of the long rail journeys I made in a year, can't do that any more, they are simply not available. Split ticketing helps but at the absolute best drops the rail ticket to comparable to the car and makes the flexibility even worse.