Subsidy in the UK compared to Other Countries

[jayah]

In some regions active travel and public transport between them account for 80% modal share.

No - this might be the case in some parts of Zone 1 in London but is not true of any region in the UK.

 

[jayah]

Road costs are more than paid for by £25bn a year in fuel duty obtained from sales of road fuel, plus several billion more in VAT on just that duty.

Annual public spending on roads is around £11bn a year, so it is fair to say the subsidy for rail and spending on entire road network are broadly similar.

 

[slowroad]

In some regions active travel and public transport between them account for 80% modal share. Not all car journeys are equal, Bill driving his Land Rover 10 miles into the nearest village for some bread isn't going to cause much congestion, whereas Brenda driving the kids a quarter of a mile to school and a quarter of a mile back home (the sort of journey that could easily be replaced by active travel) is significantly contributing to congestion.


All externalities?


If I buy a packet of chocolate digestives do you hypothcate the VAT paid to be put towards gastric bypasses on the NHS?

VAT is general taxation, it just goes into the Treasury, you can't say that VAT on fuel is a contribution towards road costs because if the person had spent the money on chocolate digestives the same amount of VAT would end up in the Treasury.


Our road network is maintained? You could've fooled me!

There are no regions in developed countries where the share of total distance travelled that is by public transport and active travel is anything like 80 per cent. The only places that approach this are the inner areas of the very largest cities. In the UK, across all regions other than London, the figure is generally nearer to 10 per percent.

 

[stuu]

Buses do a different job. They're great for hopping to the next town to do the shopping. Not so good for visiting friends or family one or more county away.

Why are longer journeys more worthy of public subsidy?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2023 ==

There are no regions in developed countries where the share of total distance travelled that is by public transport and active travel is anything like 80 per cent. The only places that approach this are the inner areas of the very largest cities. In the UK, across all regions other than London, the figure is generally nearer to 10 per percent.

Why does distance matter so much? Total journeys is far more useful, as discussed elsewhere. Journey length is arbitrary and enormously skews the figures.

 

[yorksrob]

Why are longer journeys more worthy of public subsidy?

Public transport generally is worthy of public subsidy.

Sometimes people have reason to travel longer distances - we are not medieval serfs.

 

[stuu]

Public transport generally is worthy of public subsidy.

Sometimes people have reason to travel longer distances - we are not medieval serfs.

But you suggested that buses are less worthy of subsidy because they are used for different purposes. What is your logic?

 

[yorksrob]

But you suggested that buses are less worthy of subsidy because they are used for different purposes. What is your logic?

I didn't suggest that buses weren't worthy of subsidy.

I pointed out that buses can't replicate what the railway passenger network does.

 

[slowroad]

Why are longer journeys more worthy of public subsidy?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2023 ==


Why does distance matter so much? Total journeys is far more useful, as discussed elsewhere. Journey length is arbitrary and enormously skews the figures.

As explained elsewhere, if the concern is with traffic levels and the scope for modal shift to reduce it, it is distance that matters.

In addition, as longer trips impose higher costs on the traveler, they must also be more valuable to them.

 

[Krokodil]

The only places that approach this are the inner areas of the very largest cities

By what measure are Utrecht, Freiburg, Zurich, Basel, Bern and Copenhagen "large" cities, never mind "largest"? Their modal share of private cars ranges from 18.7% to 26% - that's over the whole metropolitain areas, not just the inner cities.

Just because the UK is hopeless at funding decent public transport and hopeless at designing good active travel infrastructure it doesn't make it inevitable.

 

[slowroad]

As explained elsewhere, if the concern is with traffic levels and the scope for modal shift to reduce it, it is distance that matters.

In addition, as longer trips impose higher costs on the traveler, they must also be more valuable to them.

To add - the case for subsidy depends on the harms avoided and/or the benefits gained. These will generally be greater for longer trips, but not necessarily so.

 

[Krokodil]

As explained elsewhere, if the concern is with traffic levels and the scope for modal shift to reduce it, it is distance that matters.

No it isn't. It's the short journeys that cause the most congestion and urban pollution.

 

[slowroad]

By what measure are Utrecht, Freiburg, Zurich, Basel, Bern and Copenhagen "large" cities, never mind "largest"? Their modal share of private cars ranges from 18.7% to 26% - that's over the whole metropolitain areas, not just the inner cities.

Just because the UK is hopeless at funding decent public transport and hopeless at designing good active travel infrastructure it doesn't make it inevitable.

These are shares for journeys, not distance travelled. And they are cities, not regions as originally claimed. At the regional and national levels, cars dominate across all countries, with a share in the UK that is broadly similar to other developed countries, including Germany and Denmark. Cars also dominate in Switzerland, but it does have a high rail share, probably reflecting its settlement pattern. (As an aside, I believe Switzerland now has no ticket offices.)

 

[Krokodil]

These are shares for journeys, not distance travelled.

You've been told by more than one poster why distance travelled is not a useful measure if the objective is to deal with congestion and air pollution.

And they are cities, not regions as originally claimed.

Forgive me for using a term informally instead of in it's strictest government definition. How do you class Liverpool City Region?

but it does have a high rail share, probably reflecting its settlement pattern.

Probably reflecting the high level of subsidies and the reliable, well-planned service that results.

 

[slowroad]

No it isn't. It's the short journeys that cause the most congestion and urban pollution.

The answer to this is congestion and pollution charging that varies by time, place and fuel type. This should replace fuel duty. But this would not reduce overall traffic levels, indeed, lower costs in uncongested conditions would probably increase it.

Such charging would also remove most of the rationale for subsidising public transport.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Let hope that the next time our overpaid rail staff are on strike they reflect on how much people on significantly lower wages

If you think your good enough, come and join us. Bask in our millions and get your own private jet !! You know you want to

 

[slowroad]

You've been told by more than one poster why distance travelled is not a useful measure if the objective is to deal with congestion and air pollution.


Forgive me for using a term informally instead of in it's strictest government definition. How do you class Liverpool City Region?


Probably reflecting the high level of subsidies and the reliable, well-planned service that results.

And I have repeatedly explained why distance is more relevant for policy making.

Metropolitan areas for small cities are not the same as large city regions.

I agree high subsidies and good services are part of the Swiss rail story. So is low use of bus and active travel. But settlement pattern is definitely also part of the story - cities well spaced for rail journeys and lots of apartments. But still, cars dominate.

 

[renegademaster]

No it isn't. It's the short journeys that cause the most congestion and urban pollution.

The whole narrative about recently turned on "cold" engines being extra polluting hasn't been true for ages. Euro 5/6 etc are all measured from start . And zero effect exists with electric cars

 

[Krokodil]

The answer to this is congestion and pollution charging that varies by time, place and fuel type. This should replace fuel duty. But this would not reduce overall traffic levels, indeed, lower costs in uncongested conditions would probably increase it.

Such charging would also remove most of the rationale for subsidising public transport.

No, the answer (as has been done in many cities) is to restrict private vehicles, often pedestrianising streets or prohibiting access during daylight. Fewer parking spaces too, many cities used to have car parks on their old squares which are now gone (isn't Place Stanislas lovely now), while Paris is aiming to eliminate 72% of on-street parking. This isn't just done to discourage car use, it also encourages active travel by making it safer and more pleasant.

 

[slowroad]

The whole narrative about recently turned on "cold" engines being extra polluting hasn't been true for ages. Euro 5/6 etc are all measured from start . And zero effect exists with electric cars

In addition, there is no evidence that journeys which could reasonably be replaced by active travel are a disproportionate contributor to congestion.

 

[Krokodil]

And I have repeatedly explained why distance is more relevant for policy making.

Not very well. Kindly explain again how you deal with congestion and pollution in the places where it is the biggest issue (i.e. town and city centres) by focusing on long journeys.

 

[slowroad]

No, the answer (as has been done in many cities) is to restrict private vehicles, often pedestrianising streets or prohibiting access during daylight. Fewer parking spaces too, many cities used to have car parks on their old squares which are now gone (isn't Place Stanislas lovely now), while Paris is aiming to eliminate 72% of on-street parking. This isn't just done to discourage car use, it also encourages active travel by making it safer and more pleasant.

Such policies are perfectly reasonable- but travel to, and in, large urban centres is a small fraction of overall travel. And in less attractive and small cities they risk unintended effects. Marks and Spencer cited traffic policies as one reason for favouring locations in retail parks - and this shift seems to be paying off.

 

[Krokodil]

The whole narrative about recently turned on "cold" engines being extra polluting hasn't been true for ages. Euro 5/6 etc are all measured from start .

I didn't say anything about cold engines, did I? A car crawling about at 15mph (a common average in many urban areas) is going to have very poor fuel economy and therefore higher emissions.

In addition, there is no evidence that journeys which could reasonably be replaced by active travel are a disproportionate contributor to congestion.

Have you never noticed how much less congestion there is in peak hours when the schools are off? Most of those school runs are of a distance that could be replaced by active travel.

 

[stuu]

As explained elsewhere, if the concern is with traffic levels and the scope for modal shift to reduce it, it is distance that matters.

In addition, as longer trips impose higher costs on the traveler, they must also be more valuable to them.

Repeating an assertion does not explain it. Modal splits using distance massively skew in favour of cars, which makes sense as for many longer journeys they are often the only sensible option. But objectively, total journeys is the far more useful one as distance is arbitrary.

Longer distances don't necessarily imply higher value to the traveller, they may be forced to make longer journeys because of external factors like housing costs or an employer moving locations

 

[slowroad]

Not very well. Kindly explain again how you deal with congestion and pollution in the places where it is the biggest issue (i.e. town and city centres) by focusing on long journeys.

I am not suggesting focusing on long journeys. I am suggesting that pollution and congestion rises roughly proportionally to traffic volume. If you repabce one journey of 10 miles with 2 of five miles, pollution and congestion would be roughly unchanged.

Pollution and congestion is worse in some places, and that demands a policy response focused on those places. I’d favour charging rather than relying on road space reductions as the latter isolation will worsen congestion and pollution.

 

[Krokodil]

but travel to, and in, large urban centres is a small fraction of overall travel

Maybe, but that's where the traffic jams are so why wouldn't you start by focusing on them?

And in less attractive and small cities they risk unintended effects. Marks and Spencer cited traffic policies as one reason for favouring locations in retail parks - and this shift seems to be paying off.

Yes, you need to provide good public transport as a replacement.

What makes a city unattractive? I'd say that multi-storey car parks and concrete flyovers aren't helping.

 

[slowroad]

Repeating an assertion does not explain it. Modal splits using distance massively skew in favour of cars, which makes sense as for many longer journeys they are often the only sensible option. But objectively, total journeys is the far more useful one as distance is arbitrary.

Longer distances don't necessarily imply higher value to the traveller, they may be forced to make longer journeys because of external factors like housing costs or an employer moving locations

Distance is not arbitrary- it is associated with higher emissions and more use of available road space. No one is forced to make journeys - lower housing costs and better jobs are what make the longer journeys valuable!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2023 ==

Maybe, but that's where the traffic jams are so why wouldn't you start by focusing on them?


Yes, you need to provide good public transport as a replacement.

What makes a city unattractive? I'd say that multi-storey car parks and concrete flyovers aren't helping.

Accessibility is part of attractiveness. Public transport will never be a viable alternative in many contexts. In some contexts it is just great. Horses for courses.

 

[Krokodil]

I am suggesting that pollution and congestion rises roughly proportionally to traffic volume.

Not in a congested area, it's an exponential relationship then.

I’d favour charging

Good luck with that. You'll have everyone squealling about how it's just a "money-making scheme" and a "war on motorists", and how a charge would be regressive and favours Arab playboys in Lambos over John the plumber in his van.

rather than relying on road space reductions as the latter isolation will worsen congestion and pollution.

Not necessarily, if you plan it properly traffic will flow better.

 

[stuu]

Distance is not arbitrary- it is associated with higher emissions and more use of available road space. No one is forced to make journeys - lower housing costs and better jobs are what make the longer journeys valuable!

Of course it is. I have absolutely no control over whether a company opens it's new shop next door to me or 10 miles away. Using distance travelled as the metric is meaningless

 

[HSTEd]

Start-stop car pollution from low speed running is going to be much less of a problem relatively quickly given the market share of hybrids (of various types) is skyrocketing.

The railway is caught between a scissors that wll make it less relevant in the post coronavirus, post carbon, world and a trend in the subsidies required to operate it going up every year.

It has to escape these scissors or its future is not bright.

 

[Krokodil]

Electric cars do nothing to solve congestion though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2023 ==

No - this might be the case in some parts of Zone 1 in London but is not true of any region in the UK.

I've listed entire metropolitain areas in Europe where it is the case.

Annual public spending on roads is around £11bn a year, so it is fair to say the subsidy for rail and spending on entire road network are broadly similar.

Public spending on road maintainance (which I think most of us can agree isn't keeping up with the rate repairs are needed) maybe. Then add in the cost of road policing, collisions, obesity, loss of potentially productive land to parking...