The Industry vs Its 'Customers'

[cjmillsnun]

Nationalized Railway (BR), Been there, done that.

Not that I wish to turn this into any talk of renationalisation but the government taking the responsibility and swallowing the cost just isn't gonna happen and I personally wouldn't want it.

For any company to run the railway there has to be an incentive. That incentive is financial. I like it being run as a business and I would dump the entire cost to the passenger. NR are **** loads in debt and the government just could not "swallow" any further cost. What I do like it the "management contract" for the franchises. They give a financial incentive to the TOC as well as keeping government interests more in check.

BR was run as a business in the end game. Sectorisation gave far better bang for buck than we are seeing now.

To dump the entire cost on the passenger would see cuts far deeper than Beeching as only commuter and intercity type routes could stand the cost. The rest would go.

 

[RT4038]

I would be very interested to know, if the railway were run as a pure public service, if, taken together, all of the fare and rent revenues would come close to balancing the operating costs.

But what is this 'pure public service'? Who is going to determine the level of services and fares? Money In will still have to exceed (or equal) Money Out, otherwise the business will not be able to function. If anybody thinks that the Railway Industry is going to somehow be able to decide what the level of 'pure public service' is, and then have a blank cheque of subsidy from Government to run it, they are in cloud cuckoo land.

There will ALWAYS be a budget of subsidy [even if zero!!], and income from users, and the level of service and fares vs. the costs of operation will have be affordable to that budget.

With any source of funding, comes an involvement with the decision making of what services are provided and fares charged. The passengers vote with their feet (do they travel or not) and thereby exert influence in that way, and the politicians get involved with how the taxpayers money is spent or not. This may or may not have anything to do with 'commercial' realities, but will be a determining factor of services and fares.

None of this so far has any effect on who actually runs the trains. Having this out to competitive tender is purely to keep costs in check, and to maximise revenues by providing financial incentives. If Government wants to change the services or fares (or any other detail) they could do this within the franchising system. However - this would cost extra money, and the Politicians judge that this money is not available for this purpose.

If you want to see what a Government operated 'public service' train operation looks like, look around the world and see what sort of service you get for the subsidy money paid. Some are quite good and some are atrocious. Then think what would happen to ours, in the context of similar culture to ourselves: passenger railways of USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia New Zealand etc. Be careful what you wish for!

 

[martynbristow]

The industry and customers and consumers all live on their own serrated islands.
Maybe we should draw a parallel to Tesco its customers and suppliers who had the same situation.

Some services are a pleasure to travel on and some its a necessity.
I don't think the industry has enough encoragement to change. They take our money because we have no choice. Has the recent rise in passenger number been through choice or force.
If I look at commuting to Liverpool or Manchester I have the choice of:
1. Congestion, Stress, Petrol, Parking etc (and no drinking)
2. Delays, overcrowding, inconvenient times and overpricing (maybe I can have a swift one)

There making a profit out of the poor(er) public

So there is no incentive to improve the service.

I have a choice when it comes to shopping, dining and etc but no really for travel!

However the mention of fixed advanced tickets solves the above because the company making the investment gets the money. That would provide an incentive.

Privatisation was just sectorisation with someone making a profit.

 

[Dave1987]

In recent times there has been (sadly as far as I'm concerned) a rise in the socialist thinking in of our country. It almost seems as if it some people think its scandalous that companies want to make a profit out of the goods and services they sell to the public. Its the same for the rail industry now. The railways were originally built as a business investment by private companies to compete against rival forms of transport and then against each other. But the propose was to transport their customers faster and further than other forms of transport could. Fast forward to the modern age and transport to some is seen as a right, so they see rail travel as a public service. And again my argument against that is if transport is a public right, and the railways a public service they why are all forms of transport considered a public service? Why are people so opposed to the notion of the railways being a business with customers like they were originally? Why do people not see air travel as a public service?

 

[fowler9]

In recent times there has been (sadly as far as I'm concerned) a rise in the socialist thinking in of our country. It almost seems as if it some people think its scandalous that companies want to make a profit out of the goods and services they sell to the public. Its the same for the rail industry now. The railways were originally built as a business investment by private companies to compete against rival forms of transport and then against each other. But the propose was to transport their customers faster and further than other forms of transport could. Fast forward to the modern age and transport to some is seen as a right, so they see rail travel as a public service. And again my argument against that is if transport is a public right, and the railways a public service they why are all forms of transport considered a public service? Why are people so opposed to the notion of the railways being a business with customers like they were originally? Why do people not see air travel as a public service?

Public transportation isn't a right, it is a necessity, unless we all start working around the corner from where we live in which case the railways will make a heck of a lot less money. The need for people to use transport to get to work or the shops is driven by big business. Something has got to give.

 

[Greenback]

I'd say that as a country we've actually moved further right in the last few decades. Maybe this has led to what was once considered as left of centre now being seen as socialist?

The question of whether transport is a public service or a business has never been satisfactorily answered. It was certainly considered a public service during the world wars, but politicians have always expected the industry to pay its way at other times, and there have been many attempts to try and help it to do that from the Grouping onwards.

Perhaps the truth is that without the railways we'd all be worse off in many ways, and I think the same goes for air travel.

 

[martynbristow]

On the topic of the railways being *public*. They have always been to an extent *private as someone has always made a profit and always will. They have become excessively private however.

Under BR you had managers making a pretty penny and lots of people getting paid money.

If you draw a parallel with the NHS some consultants and middle managers get paid an absolute fortune and all the suppliers (Phillips, Dell, 3M, GSK) make a mint off it. The same is true for the railway.

If someone has a good idea or they invest they deserve to be compensated.
The TOC's 3% is for this, although 3% is a bit high for a sure return.

But because of the growing inequality in society people have changed there stance.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Public transportation isn't a right, it is a necessity, unless we all start working around the corner from where we live in which case the railways will make a heck of a lot less money. The need for people to use transport to get to work or the shops is driven by big business. Something has got to give.

Public transport is not a necessity, it provides opportunity. This is the same that driving is not a right or flying. Providing local public transport is a necessity to provide economic function.
Local transport should be managed by a local government agency as its partly done here and done in other countries.
But with semi-long distance this should be a free market. If you choose to live in one city and work in another you have the choice to move or commute, but this isn't the case for the suburbs. On semi & long distances you can provide effective competition to drive down prices.

 

[fowler9]

On the topic of the railways being *public*. They have always been to an extent *private as someone has always made a profit and always will. They have become excessively private however.

Under BR you had managers making a pretty penny and lots of people getting paid money.

If you draw a parallel with the NHS some consultants and middle managers get paid an absolute fortune and all the suppliers (Phillips, Dell, 3M, GSK) make a mint off it. The same is true for the railway.

If someone has a good idea or they invest they deserve to be compensated.
The TOC's 3% is for this, although 3% is a bit high for a sure return.

But because of the growing inequality in society people have changed there stance.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Public transport is not a necessity, it provides opportunity. This is the same that driving is not a right or flying. Providing local public transport is a necessity to provide economic function.
Local transport should be managed by a local government agency as its partly done here and done in other countries.
But with semi-long distance this should be a free market. If you choose to live in one city and work in another you have the choice to move or commute, but this isn't the case for the suburbs. On semi & long distances you can provide effective competition to drive down prices.

You conflated 2 things there. You said that public transport is not a necessity, the same that driving or flying isn't a right. Necessity and a right are not the same thing. I think freedom of movement within our country is a right and is something different.

A couple of years ago I had to take a job in Birchwood which was a good commute of an hour and a half from where I live in south Liverpool. I didn't want to do it but had to or get my benefits cut. I wasn't choosing to work somewhere I didn't live, and if I tried to get social housing in Warrington or Birchwood I would be accused of choosing to work somewhere I didn't live and go to the bottom of the list. I also couldn't afford to just move to Warrington to private accomodation.

It is all about the illusion of choice where most people have none.

 

[martynbristow]

You conflated 2 things there. You said that public transport is not a necessity, the same that driving or flying isn't a right. Necessity and a right are not the same thing. I think freedom of movement within our country is a right and is something different.

A couple of years ago I had to take a job in Birchwood which was a good commute of an hour and a half from where I live in south Liverpool. I didn't want to do it but had to or get my benefits cut. I wasn't choosing to work somewhere I didn't live, and if I tried to get social housing in Warrington or Birchwood I would be accused of choosing to work somewhere I didn't live and go to the bottom of the list. I also couldn't afford to just move to Warrington to private accomodation.

I would argue Birchwood should be served by a local service, therefore excluded from this.
Secondly isn't this more because of crackpot ideas developing industry in places accessible primarily by road. I think the issue here was more to do with the way the economy developed.
Although its good that you chose to do this and contribute to the economy.
When I mean semi-long distance I'm thinking more London-Liverpool, Liverpool-Leeds and maybe Manchester.
Liverpool - Birchwood would be a commuter link.

 

[al.currie93]

Nationalized Railway (BR), Been there, done that.

I know you were referring to BR, my question was pointing out that we still have a railway which is nationalised and operates on those principles (LUL) - and does so extremely well in my opinion.

 

[fowler9]

I would argue Birchwood should be served by a local service, therefore excluded from this.
Secondly isn't this more because of crackpot ideas developing industry in places accessible primarily by road. I think the issue here was more to do with the way the economy developed.
Although its good that you chose to do this and contribute to the economy.
When I mean semi-long distance I'm thinking more London-Liverpool, Liverpool-Leeds and maybe Manchester.
Liverpool - Birchwood would be a commuter link.

Well I agree entirely with you on that. Birchwood isn't that far from where I live, it isn't covered by one local authorities train fares though and once you get there is completely set up for motorists. The whole area is.

I don't work in Birchwood any more as it was an absolute nightmare. I now work much closer to home and generally walk to work. Lots of people don't though and if you don't live in the area it is a pig to get to quickly and cheaply because the building was originally built for people who lived right by it. This doesn't happen any more.

Liverpool to London I would say i not a semi long distance commute. It is long distance. As for Manchester. Several friends recently had to start commuting to Manchester because the Liverpool office closed. Fixed term contracts, no redundancy, just the dole if they wouldn't do it. Even worse another place I worked recently closed down the Liverpool office and offered jobs in Bolton.

People aren't always choosing these commutes. Big business forces them in to them then another big business comes along and tells you how much this commute will cost.

Just watch some Bill Hicks. He'll explain it all and make it funny.

 

[martynbristow]

I know you were referring to BR, my question was pointing out that we still have a railway which is nationalised and operates on those principles (LUL) - and does so extremely well in my opinion.

Well LU and LO are TfL and thats a different kettle. Its run by Borris and is an integrated operation. It does well although there are plenty of critics. The national network isn't the responsibility of a single individual which I think causes the issues.

Well I agree entirely with you on that. Birchwood isn't that far from where I live, it isn't covered by one local authorities train fares though and once you get there is completely set up for motorists. The whole area is.

I don't work in Birchwood any more as it was an absolute nightmare. I now work much closer to home and generally walk to work. Lots of people don't though and if you don't live in the area it is a pig to get to quickly and cheaply because the building was originally built for people who lived right by it. This doesn't happen any more.

Liverpool to London I would say i not a semi long distance commute. It is long distance. As for Manchester. Several friends recently had to start commuting to Manchester because the Liverpool office closed. Fixed term contracts, no redundancy, just the dole if they wouldn't do it. Even worse another place I worked recently closed down the Liverpool office and offered jobs in Bolton.

People aren't always choosing these commutes. Big business forces them in to them then another big business comes along and tells you how much this commute will cost.

Just watch some Bill Hicks. He'll explain it all and make it funny.

My bad I missed a -, semi - long distances.

Your later point is unfortunate but more to do with business. If they think they can try it on they will. I think the government needs to regulate this abusive system we have, although from what I hear they like to use it too!

 

[Dave1987]

There are plenty of people who work in London due to the higher wages but live way out of London because they want the cheaper housing and purposefully choose to commute everyday. Now they have the option of driving into London every day or travel by train. The railway is offering a service by transporting them into and out of London every day. Just the same way as the business they may work for are providing good and/or services to their customers, the railway could be seen as a business providing transport for them to get into work. There are some rare cases by which people have to travel to get to work but most people are choosing to travel to where ever they are going be that by road, rail or air. That is why I have no issue with seeing the railway as a business rather than a public service. The same as it has been since they were created by the Victorians.

 

[al78]

In recent times there has been (sadly as far as I'm concerned) a rise in the socialist thinking in of our country. It almost seems as if it some people think its scandalous that companies want to make a profit out of the goods and services they sell to the public. Its the same for the rail industry now. The railways were originally built as a business investment by private companies to compete against rival forms of transport and then against each other. But the propose was to transport their customers faster and further than other forms of transport could. Fast forward to the modern age and transport to some is seen as a right, so they see rail travel as a public service. And again my argument against that is if transport is a public right, and the railways a public service they why are all forms of transport considered a public service? Why are people so opposed to the notion of the railways being a business with customers like they were originally? Why do people not see air travel as a public service?

I can see it being reasonable for railways to be a business if if were the case that only those who use the train benefit from the train. This, however is a fallacy.

The more people use the train, the better off we all are. If people find the trains too expensive, too unreliable, and too inconvenient then they are not going to choose to not travel (as the journey is likely necessary), they will likely choose to go by car instead. This results in increased externalized costs on society through increased air and noise pollution, increased congestion and increased risk imposed on vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists. If switching from train to car results in a more sedentary lifestyle uptake (as the car transports door-to-door, whereas using trains will involve more walking and, for a few, cycling too and from stations) this will likely impose more sedentary lifestyle-related health costs on the NHS (remember that?) - and by extension all of us - money and their friends and relatives some happiness.

The principle of business and associated pricing is that the person(s) who benefit should pay. By falling for the fallacy that only people using the train benefit from the train we have the system we have now - through privatisation - a train system that is too expensive and doesn't cater well enough for people who would otherwise be naturally inclined to use it.

If you don't fall for the fallacy that the only beneficiary of train travel is the person using the train then it becomes clear that it should be subsidised, and not run as a profit making exercise but as a public service.

Personally I would be happy to pay more tax to go towards improvements to the railways instead of treating people for obesity and diabetes because they have traveled everywhere by car and locked themselves into a sedentary lifestyle.

The marketing message should be "it's so cheap you'd be an idiot to travel any other way" - and all it would take is a few quid now (instead of a few quid later on remedial health treatment) and we'd have a better and less polluted world.

 

[Starmill]

There are plenty of people who work in London due to the higher wages but live way out of London because they want the cheaper housing and purposefully choose to commute everyday. Now they have the option of driving into London every day or travel by train. The railway is offering a service by transporting them into and out of London every day. Just the same way as the business they may work for are providing good and/or services to their customers, the railway could be seen as a business providing transport for them to get into work. There are some rare cases by which people have to travel to get to work but most people are choosing to travel to where ever they are going be that by road, rail or air. That is why I have no issue with seeing the railway as a business rather than a public service. The same as it has been since they were created by the Victorians.

Which modes of transport are likely to be long-term sustainable? Only trains, buses, light rail and metro type modes, active modes, and perhaps electric or hydrogen powered private vehicles, but nobody is quite sure about that last, and the technology is very underdeveloped because of the current availability of lucrative oil. The way our economy has been developed, people need to travel. We could all go back to subsistence farming, and stay in one place. But that seems less likely to me than a bit more focus on ensuring that everyone has access to high-quality affordable public transport.

 

[sbt]

The word and concept a lot of people seem to be struggling to find is 'Infrastructure'. To partially quote Wikipedia "... the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area,including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function". If you do not believe that Railways form part of the National Infrastructure I refer you to the assessments of the impact of the closure of the closure of the rail line at Dawlish Warren.

Of course elements of infrastructure can be eliminated and the impact worked around, but there will be impacts. For example I live on a boat, a large number of other people who live on one operate 'Off Grid', that is, without connection to the national 230V electricity infrastructure. They also live without landline telecommunications, another element of infrastructure. I myself live without mains sewage.

People can avoid using the railways but there will be consequences. To take a personal example - as I am not currently in a legal or financial position to move I would lose my job and have great difficulty in finding a new one as my skills are rather specialised and I have health issues. Thats a personal impact, but the national impact is that it would add, at least temporarily, to the Social Security budget and deny the MoD access to a Defence Analyst with 30 years experience and high quality Software Design skills. Repeat that many times and the problem becomes less than trivial - it can be worked around but it will cost time and money.

How you supply National Infrastructure is an issue for debate, but, generally, supply it you must. Remember that even that most automobile and Private Enterprise focused society, the United States of America, has a rail system, including 'local' commuter systems that rival our national ones. They are there for a reason (or, rather, a whole set of reasons).

As I have said, how you supply infrastructure is an issue for debate and analysis. Nationally and worldwide various approaches are used, there are a lot more issues involved than just 'Private' or 'Public' - there are many variations of 'Private', 'Public' and combinations of the two. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages. For any given situation there will usually be at least two reasonably practical, worthwhile and optimal approaches - which one you choose is then down to which advantages and disadvantages you prioritise, or even which you perceive as 'advantage' and 'disadvantage'.

 

[fowler9]

There are plenty of people who work in London due to the higher wages but live way out of London because they want the cheaper housing and purposefully choose to commute everyday. Now they have the option of driving into London every day or travel by train. The railway is offering a service by transporting them into and out of London every day. Just the same way as the business they may work for are providing good and/or services to their customers, the railway could be seen as a business providing transport for them to get into work. There are some rare cases by which people have to travel to get to work but most people are choosing to travel to where ever they are going be that by road, rail or air. That is why I have no issue with seeing the railway as a business rather than a public service. The same as it has been since they were created by the Victorians.

Hang on a minute, there are some rare cases were people have to travel to get to work? Unless the thousands of people in my area all get jobs in the local Tesco how are we choosing to travel to work? My local area has been here for hundreds of years. We didn't choose to move all the business out and work somewhere else. Sorry mate. Telling people they can live in central London on a subsistence wage paying off a slum landlord a fortune or live miles away and pay a TOC a fortune just doesn't cut it. Life isn't all about creating profit for someone else.

 

[martynbristow]

Hang on a minute, there are some rare cases were people have to travel to get to work? Unless the thousands of people in my area all get jobs in the local Tesco how are we choosing to travel to work? My local area has been here for hundreds of years. We didn't choose to move all the business out and work somewhere else. Sorry mate. Telling people they can live in central London on a subsistence wage paying off a slum landlord a fortune or live miles away and pay a TOC a fortune just doesn't cut it. Life isn't all about creating profit for someone else.

Life isn't about making a profit for someone else ...
Who do you bank with, shop with, by your electric from ....
Unfortunately that's the capitalistic model

 

[fowler9]

Life isn't about making a profit for someone else ...
Who do you bank with, shop with, by your electric from ....
Unfortunately that's the capitalistic model

Nothing unfortunate about it. People vote, or rather don't vote and just accept it. I don't get the whole "Well it just has to be like this" idea. Capitalism doesn't work unless you have loads of people out of work thus keeping the price of employment down. At the same time the powers that be will encourage you not to want to pay for the ****less who "don't want to work" (Without whom the system wouldn't work).

It doesn't have to be like this.

 

[Dave1987]

Which modes of transport are likely to be long-term sustainable? Only trains, buses, light rail and metro type modes, active modes, and perhaps electric or hydrogen powered private vehicles, but nobody is quite sure about that last, and the technology is very underdeveloped because of the current availability of lucrative oil. The way our economy has been developed, people need to travel. We could all go back to subsistence farming, and stay in one place. But that seems less likely to me than a bit more focus on ensuring that everyone has access to high-quality affordable public transport.

Our economy has developed in a way that people who want the higher wages of the big cities realise that they don't have to pay the cost of housing in them and can commute everyday. That is a decision they have made. If they chose to live near to where they work then could probably commute by bike or walk and zero cost (except the cost of the bike). The faster the railways have got the longer distances people are happy to live from their place of work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hang on a minute, there are some rare cases were people have to travel to get to work? Unless the thousands of people in my area all get jobs in the local Tesco how are we choosing to travel to work? My local area has been here for hundreds of years. We didn't choose to move all the business out and work somewhere else. Sorry mate. Telling people they can live in central London on a subsistence wage paying off a slum landlord a fortune or live miles away and pay a TOC a fortune just doesn't cut it. Life isn't all about creating profit for someone else.

Most examples I can think of people chose to work in London but live in the country. I know one lady who calculated that she would be no worse of taking a lower wage in a local business than commute to London each day and would save the 2hrs each day. Life isn't all about creating profit for others or yourself but its also not about having everything handed to you on a plate by the govt.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nothing unfortunate about it. People vote, or rather don't vote and just accept it. I don't get the whole "Well it just has to be like this" idea. Capitalism doesn't work unless you have loads of people out of work thus keeping the price of employment down. At the same time the powers that be will encourage you not to want to pay for the ****less who "don't want to work" (Without whom the system wouldn't work).

It doesn't have to be like this.

Capitalism works by a business paying you for the work you do for them. If you are highly skilled you get paid more. If there are few people out of work businesses have to pay higher wages to attract people to fill their vacancies, the whole supply and demand model. If every member of society wants to find work and work hard then them the system works extremely well, as proven by Germany.

 

[W230]

Unless the thousands of people in my area all get jobs in the local Tesco how are we choosing to travel to work?

But you know as well as I that they don't want to work in local Tesco for less when they can work in London for £££.

My local area has been here for hundreds of years. We didn't choose to move all the business out and work somewhere else.

And neither did the railways.

Telling people they can live in central London on a subsistence wage paying off a slum landlord a fortune or live miles away and pay a TOC a fortune just doesn't cut it. Life isn't all about creating profit for someone else.

Spot on. So people can vote with their feet and take a local job on a fraction of the pay. Or, see above...

FWIW, I agree that the railways should be a public service. But I do see a certain amusement in people complaining about paying thousands for their season tickets to London while refusing to acknowledge the financial benefits it brings them. I remember when I lived up north and a relative of a colleague who lived in Retford decided to jack in his local job and commute to London each day. He earned £22k a year more than working locally. But he was also annoyed about the delays and costs he faced getting to work and the time spent sat on trains...

 

[Greenback]

Looking at the history of my local area, it was industry that came first, followed by the docks and railways that served it. The houses were constructed to house the workers of these undertakings, as there was no concept back in the early 19th century of people travelling 50 miles or more to reach their place of work.

The longest commute in those days in this area would have been walking several miles, though the owners and managers of the works might have lived a little further away because they could afford carriages to take them back and fore.

Even when people started to use trains to get to and from their employment, the distances covered were far shorter than they are now. The result of societal and economic changes is that we now have a lot of housing which is not within walking distance of most current places of employment.

The point of my ramblings is to try and illustrate that these changes have made comparisons between now and 'then' pretty irrelevant. Private ownerships worked back in the early days because the economy, and people's lives were much simpler.

The argument that the railways are better off in private hands because they started out in private hands is a bit of a non starter for me. They are necessary for the economic health of the UK now, and without them many people would struggle. As they are such a valuable part of the country's infrastructure, there is no way that they should be treated as a private business and left to the vagaries of the market. There needs to be an element of state control, the real debate is how much influence the state should have.

I don't think that capitalism works extremely well. I think that it's outdated, results in a cycle of boom and bust, is unsustainable in the current world, and I sense that the idea that there is no other way is faltering.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I find the arguments about road versus rail, and the arguments about commuters, to be rather bizarre to be honest.

The road network is not operated as a business; it never has been and probably never will be. The M1 is not expected to "pay for itself", the users of the M1 are not expected to directly pay for the recent upgrade to managed motorway. The M1 is not expected to behave like a business, with surge pricing and archane restrictions; the government takes the M1 as it is and just writes the cheques.

If I chose to drive to work every day I wouldn't be charged a penny at point of use- the infrastructure cost of the road network is funded out of direct taxation. The vehicle excise duty on my car is £0, the only additional cost I'd have is fuel excise duty (which is payable regardless of whether I burn the fuel on a public road or not).

Yet because I choose to travel by train to work, I'm expected to fund the whole cost of the infrastructure at the point of use- in addition to all the money I've paid in tax towards the cost of the roads I don't use. The railway has to "pay for itself" and "competition" is good for the network.

There's no reason why railways can't be treated in a similar fashion as roads, especially in mass transit areas. If everyone who uses the tube or bus in London suddenly started driving, we'd have gridlocks that'd make Mexico City or Sao Paulo look empty in comparison. Yet it's the mass transit systems that are expected to act like businesses.

It's the same with leisure travelling too. If I take the car to Newcastle from here it's about £80 in petrol, plus a bit of maintenance and depreciation. The tax cost of the M1 and A1 is paid regardless of whether I use them or not. Yet if I take the train, as I am doing at May bank holiday, it's £210 for us both, as I'm expected to pay for the railway track and Virgin's profits at point of sale, as well as the tax costs of the A1 and M1 I've not used. It is completely ridiculous.

 

[Greenback]

Indeed. It's recognised that the roads are essential to the economic well being of the UK, the same is true for the rail network. As mentioned earlier, we all benefit from both rail and roads even if we don't actually use one or the other.

 

[martynbristow]

Looking at the history of my local area, it was industry that came first, followed by the docks and railways that served it. The houses were constructed to house the workers of these undertakings, as there was no concept back in the early 19th century of people travelling 50 miles or more to reach their place of work.

The longest commute in those days in this area would have been walking several miles, though the owners and managers of the works might have lived a little further away because they could afford carriages to take them back and fore.

Even when people started to use trains to get to and from their employment, the distances covered were far shorter than they are now. The result of societal and economic changes is that we now have a lot of housing which is not within walking distance of most current places of employment.

The point of my ramblings is to try and illustrate that these changes have made comparisons between now and 'then' pretty irrelevant. Private ownerships worked back in the early days because the economy, and people's lives were much simpler.

The argument that the railways are better off in private hands because they started out in private hands is a bit of a non starter for me. They are necessary for the economic health of the UK now, and without them many people would struggle. As they are such a valuable part of the country's infrastructure, there is no way that they should be treated as a private business and left to the vagaries of the market. There needs to be an element of state control, the real debate is how much influence the state should have.

I don't think that capitalism works extremely well. I think that it's outdated, results in a cycle of boom and bust, is unsustainable in the current world, and I sense that the idea that there is no other way is faltering.

Capitalism doesn't work under laissez-faire and it needs some regulation to enable it to gain the best, as it encorages a race to the bottom. However it also demands payment for work and for efficiency which other systems don't. We need careful economic regulation and social responsibility governed by principles.

I find the arguments about road versus rail, and the arguments about commuters, to be rather bizarre to be honest.

The road network is not operated as a business; it never has been and probably never will be. The M1 is not expected to "pay for itself", the users of the M1 are not expected to directly pay for the recent upgrade to managed motorway. The M1 is not expected to behave like a business, with surge pricing and archane restrictions; the government takes the M1 as it is and just writes the cheques.

If I chose to drive to work every day I wouldn't be charged a penny at point of use- the infrastructure cost of the road network is funded out of direct taxation. The vehicle excise duty on my car is £0, the only additional cost I'd have is fuel excise duty (which is payable regardless of whether I burn the fuel on a public road or not).

Yet because I choose to travel by train to work, I'm expected to fund the whole cost of the infrastructure at the point of use- in addition to all the money I've paid in tax towards the cost of the roads I don't use. The railway has to "pay for itself" and "competition" is good for the network.

There's no reason why railways can't be treated in a similar fashion as roads, especially in mass transit areas. If everyone who uses the tube or bus in London suddenly started driving, we'd have gridlocks that'd make Mexico City or Sao Paulo look empty in comparison. Yet it's the mass transit systems that are expected to act like businesses.

It's the same with leisure travelling too. If I take the car to Newcastle from here it's about £80 in petrol, plus a bit of maintenance and depreciation. The tax cost of the M1 and A1 is paid regardless of whether I use them or not. Yet if I take the train, as I am doing at May bank holiday, it's £210 for us both, as I'm expected to pay for the railway track and Virgin's profits at point of sale, as well as the tax costs of the A1 and M1 I've not used. It is completely ridiculous.

You pay at the point of use in terms of petrol, and you drive a nice vehicle that is cheap to run but you raise a valid point about roads and should we be charging for roads directly instead of through taxation.
I think urban transport should use an improved payment model but its not going to happen. The "public" sector doesn't like change or modernisation because there is no incentive to do it.
Potentially Merseyrail where I am could switch to an alternative payments solution funded through automated payments (ITSO) or through local tax, both have there advantages and disadvantages. If you did either you would dictate the mass closure of booking offices and a switch effectively to DOO (practicalities ignored) with a token core staff monitoring, securing and maintaining the network. Although it would make everyones life easier and cheaper you'd induce mass redundacy on a workforce. TfL tried to reduce its booking offices and it had the unions kicking off.

 

[Dave1987]

Looking at the history of my local area, it was industry that came first, followed by the docks and railways that served it. The houses were constructed to house the workers of these undertakings, as there was no concept back in the early 19th century of people travelling 50 miles or more to reach their place of work.

The longest commute in those days in this area would have been walking several miles, though the owners and managers of the works might have lived a little further away because they could afford carriages to take them back and fore.

Even when people started to use trains to get to and from their employment, the distances covered were far shorter than they are now. The result of societal and economic changes is that we now have a lot of housing which is not within walking distance of most current places of employment.

The point of my ramblings is to try and illustrate that these changes have made comparisons between now and 'then' pretty irrelevant. Private ownerships worked back in the early days because the economy, and people's lives were much simpler.

The argument that the railways are better off in private hands because they started out in private hands is a bit of a non starter for me. They are necessary for the economic health of the UK now, and without them many people would struggle. As they are such a valuable part of the country's infrastructure, there is no way that they should be treated as a private business and left to the vagaries of the market. There needs to be an element of state control, the real debate is how much influence the state should have.

I don't think that capitalism works extremely well. I think that it's outdated, results in a cycle of boom and bust, is unsustainable in the current world, and I sense that the idea that there is no other way is faltering.

I understand your argument but I think the speed at which you can travel now has exasperated the whole issue that people believe they have a right to live a long distance away from their place of work. There was a study a while back which said people who walk or cycle to work tend to be much happier. The lure of the higher salaries in the big cities and the speed in which people can travel to and from those big cities has changed the way people view travel. Even though people have made a conscious decision to live a long distance from their place of work they still see it as a necessity to be able to commute even though they could live closer or work locally.

Capitalism works as it rewards hard work and innovation. Socialism feeds envy and a something for nothing culture.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I find the arguments about road versus rail, and the arguments about commuters, to be rather bizarre to be honest.

The road network is not operated as a business; it never has been and probably never will be. The M1 is not expected to "pay for itself", the users of the M1 are not expected to directly pay for the recent upgrade to managed motorway. The M1 is not expected to behave like a business, with surge pricing and archane restrictions; the government takes the M1 as it is and just writes the cheques.

If I chose to drive to work every day I wouldn't be charged a penny at point of use- the infrastructure cost of the road network is funded out of direct taxation. The vehicle excise duty on my car is £0, the only additional cost I'd have is fuel excise duty (which is payable regardless of whether I burn the fuel on a public road or not).

Yet because I choose to travel by train to work, I'm expected to fund the whole cost of the infrastructure at the point of use- in addition to all the money I've paid in tax towards the cost of the roads I don't use. The railway has to "pay for itself" and "competition" is good for the network.

There's no reason why railways can't be treated in a similar fashion as roads, especially in mass transit areas. If everyone who uses the tube or bus in London suddenly started driving, we'd have gridlocks that'd make Mexico City or Sao Paulo look empty in comparison. Yet it's the mass transit systems that are expected to act like businesses.

It's the same with leisure travelling too. If I take the car to Newcastle from here it's about £80 in petrol, plus a bit of maintenance and depreciation. The tax cost of the M1 and A1 is paid regardless of whether I use them or not. Yet if I take the train, as I am doing at May bank holiday, it's £210 for us both, as I'm expected to pay for the railway track and Virgin's profits at point of sale, as well as the tax costs of the A1 and M1 I've not used. It is completely ridiculous.

The amount of fuel duty you pay along with all the other taxes that go along with vehicle ownership more than covers the cost of maintaining the roads. VED used to be called a "Road fund license" and is still referred to as "road tax".

Your argument also says that you view travelling as your right so why should you have to pay towards the costs associated with that travel, which is complete nonsense.

 

[Starmill]

Our economy has developed in a way that people who want the higher wages of the big cities realise that they don't have to pay the cost of housing in them and can commute everyday. That is a decision they have made. If they chose to live near to where they work then could probably commute by bike or walk and zero cost (except the cost of the bike). The faster the railways have got the longer distances people are happy to live from their place of work.

I don't agree with your interpretation - the way the economy develops is up to us. The government's mandate is to aim for even, balanced and fair growth throughout the country and across society, not growth in London so people can live from afar and 'choose' to commute there!

 

[Tetchytyke]

The amount of fuel duty you pay along with all the other taxes that go along with vehicle ownership more than covers the cost of maintaining the roads.

No it doesn't.

And even if it did, that's not my point. My point is that the road network is not expected to "pay for itself" or "raise revenue", the government just writes the cheque out of general taxation. If fuel excise duty doesn't cover the whole cost (and it doesn't) then the cost will be funded from other sources, such as income tax.

Road users do not pay- with a few small exceptions, such as the Dartford Crossing- towards the infrastructure costs of the roads they use.

VED used to be called a "Road fund license" and is still referred to as "road tax".

And my VED is £0.00 a year.

Your argument also says that you view travelling as your right so why should you have to pay towards the costs associated with that travel, which is complete nonsense.

Travelling may or may not be "a right", but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

If I travel by road the infrastructure costs are met out of general taxation, regardless of whether I travel or not.

If I travel by rail I am expected to pay a significant amount- almost 50% of the fare I pay, according to ATOC- towards the infrastructure costs.

 

[martynbristow]

I don't agree with your interpretation - the way the economy develops is up to us. The government's mandate is to aim for even, balanced and fair growth throughout the country and across society, not growth in London so people can live from afar and 'choose' to commute there!

The government tries to get development outside London however the commercial companies like to be in the capital in close proximity to each other.

No it doesn't.

And even if it did, that's not my point. My point is that the road network is not expected to "pay for itself" or "raise revenue", the government just writes the cheque out of general taxation. If fuel excise duty doesn't cover the whole cost (and it doesn't) then the cost will be funded from other sources, such as income tax.

Road users do not pay- with a few small exceptions, such as the Dartford Crossing- towards the infrastructure costs of the roads they use.



And my VED is £0.00 a year.



Travelling may or may not be "a right", but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

If I travel by road the infrastructure costs are met out of general taxation, regardless of whether I travel or not.

If I travel by rail I am expected to pay a significant amount- almost 50% of the fare I pay, according to ATOC- towards the infrastructure costs.

Although what you suggest is sensible its not going to go down well and it would require a huge amount of infrastructure. Everyone would moan at having to pay more.
But I seriously think someone should be pushing for this.

 

[al.currie93]

I've stayed rather quiet in this argument so far, but Greenback, Arctic Troll and starmill have pretty much said my own feelings over the course of this thread - I pretty much agree with what you say. I'll also again refer to London Underground, which is state owned however much anyone tries to dress it up as anything else, and functions extremely well as a public service (yes it may have some critics, but everything will and the majority of people believe it's a very good system). I believe that the railways as a whole are a public service, and that LUL should be a bit of an example to the rest of the railway network.

Capitalism works as it rewards hard work and innovation. Socialism feeds envy and a something for nothing culture.

Actually, I'd argue that capitalism also feeds an "every man for himself" and "dog eat dog" culture, which is goes against the work-together-ethic that allowed civilisation to exist in the first place. I'd more say that it's pure communism that breeds the something for nothing culture (which, for the record, I see as being just as bad as capitalism), and the envy you mention is bred by both. Neither works as a purity - a balance is needed between the two.