What effect could improved rail services have on M4 congestion?

[Gwenllian2001]

All this discussion of road v rail is a bit wide of the mark and a moment's thought brings up a couple of interesting points.

There are more people using the railways now than when the network was much larger and the growth in passenger carryings shows no real sign of slowing down.

What does give me pause for thought is that when the railways were in their heyday the amount of road traffic was miniscule compared to now. Just look at any film, with street scenes, made in Fifties and everywhere seems deserted by comparison to present times.

If it proves anything, it shows that far more people travel to work now than ever before and local industries have been replaced with services coming in by lorry and van.

 

[tbtc]

There are environmental and social advantages to encouraging people to use public transport rather than drive, whereas the reverse is not true, hence the comparison doesn't work.

I'd rather that people travelled by train than car, don't get me wrong.

But there does seem to be some enthusiast "doublethink" along the lines of:

• If you build it, they will come (i.e. more railways will mean more services and more passengers, which is a good thing)
• Building more roads causes more congestion (i.e. more roads will mean more cars and more motorists, which is a bad thing)

Not all new roads are automatically bad, just as not all new railways are automatically a good way to spend our money.

 

[orpine]

These economic theories are all well and good. If you want to believe them, then.....

The way I see it there must be a finite limit to road traffic.

I'm sure there is, but how high is it? There are large numbers of motorways with eight lanes, and they still get congestion.
And these aren't theories, they're observations, just like Moores-law. It turns out that it can be repeatedly shown that when you build a new road, it gets very full very quickly and you're back to square one, but now with more cars in that situation.
At least with trains they're more environmentally friendly.

 

[andykn]

I'd rather that people travelled by train than car, don't get me wrong.

But there does seem to be some enthusiast "doublethink" along the lines of:

• If you build it, they will come (i.e. more railways will mean more services and more passengers, which is a good thing)
• Building more roads causes more congestion (i.e. more roads will mean more cars and more motorists, which is a bad thing)

Not all new roads are automatically bad, just as not all new railways are automatically a good way to spend our money.

It's because the idea is not to stop people travelling but to get them to travel in the most sustainable way. More people on trains can be handled at destinations by improving railhead connections.

More people driving can only be handled at destinations by demolishing those very destinations to make room for more roads and car parks.

That's the difference.

 

[swcovas]

I don't think there is any easy fix to solve the problems of Brynglas tunnels and personally I cannot see what improvements to rail services is ever going to solve the problem. As someone has already said most people are not going to be enticed out of their cars.

However I thought the comments made by a spokesman for the South East Wales Economic Forum (See BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-25059101) were significant. They consider that the development of a S Wales metro system would be the most important investment for business in the area and that improving the M4 is important but less so than the metro.

 

[HowardGWR]

I don't think there is any easy fix to solve the problems of Brynglas tunnels and personally I cannot see what improvements to rail services is ever going to solve the problem. As someone has already said most people are not going to be enticed out of their cars.

However I thought the comments made by a spokesman for the South East Wales Economic Forum (See BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-25059101) were significant. They consider that the development of a S Wales metro system would be the most important investment for business in the area and that improving the M4 is important but less so than the metro.

Agreed, but whilst you see no solution to 'the problem' that's because they have not analysed the cause of the problem in terms of where people want to go and where they are coming from. Only after those data are known could it be analysed whether an alternative could be built and then measures taken to ensure motorists are 'enticed' out of their cars, as you put it. The link to the report given us above, proved they haven't. The consultants only analysed solutions that meant building more roads. They dismissed sustainable solutions out of hand, which is why Rhydgaled's options in his poll only include those road building options.

 

[HSTEd]

Also reducing travel in cars has problematic side effects.

Anyone planned for the hole massive reductions in car use would tear in the budget?

 

[Dolge]

To answer the original question - what rail improvements would create sufficient modal shift to affect the need for M4 enhancements? - the most obvious one is a radical improvement in services to Bristol and Filton, following electrification. At present there are two, well loaded, 2 or three car DMU's an hour. Not an awful service but not good enough to create much modal shift. After electrification there could be, say, two additional fast electrics, stopping Newport and Filton only, one extended to Swansea, while retaining present services to Portsmouth and Taunton. Electrification should attract more London traffic but the Birmingham service needs improving. Then you have Newport - Ebbw Vale, stations at Caerleon and Undy, Llanwern if developed, resited Pontypool, half hourly stoppers to Abergavenny. The whole package would be a fraction of the cost of the M4 works and should shift at least some of the M4 traffic.

 

[al78]

I'd rather that people travelled by train than car, don't get me wrong.

But there does seem to be some enthusiast "doublethink" along the lines of:

• If you build it, they will come (i.e. more railways will mean more services and more passengers, which is a good thing)
• Building more roads causes more congestion (i.e. more roads will mean more cars and more motorists, which is a bad thing)

Not all new roads are automatically bad, just as not all new railways are automatically a good way to spend our money.

Yes I take your point and yes, I agree that these things need to be judged on a case by case basis rather than adopting a black and white view.

Regarding the issue of the M4 congestion, it is difficult to say whether rail improvements will help as it all depends on the where people are traveling from and too, whether people are driving because there is no other practical way or whether they will always drive regardless, and how the cost of the equivalent rail journey compares with the marginal cost of the car journey.

 

[orpine]

Also reducing travel in cars has problematic side effects.

Anyone planned for the hole massive reductions in car use would tear in the budget?

I think you've fallen into the trap of believing roads are self-funding. We all hear how much the taxpayer funds the railways, but never the roads.
A 1996 paper showing how much more roads are subsidised than railways:
http://igreens.org.uk/great_road_transport_subsidy.htm

I'm failing at finding anything referenced that's more recent.

I did find this however - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/road-traffic-estimates-in-great-britain-2012

Following the peak in road traffic in 2007, motor vehicle traffic then fell for three consecutive years; the first consecutive annual falls since traffic records began. In contrast, between 2010 and 2012 traffic volumes were broadly stable.

 

[Greenback]

The M4 through Newport is, or at least used to be, horrendous. I haven't travelled there for a few years, but I used to be a regular passenge ron business trips to London. It didn't seem to matter what time or day it was, the traffic there was just so slow moving.

I do see sense in the argument that, as a vital gateway to south Wales from Bristol, London and the rest of southern England, something needs to be done.

It is also true to say that some jourenys cannot be feasibly done by public transport. When our business trips involved journeys to central London the train was our mode of choice. But for visits to places such as Barnet, Enfield or Hounslow, the convenience factor meant that road travel won hands down. Not least because we could visit more customers without the incovnenience of using local buses, and also because we caould carry more staff in the boot of the car!

Overall, I see the M4 improvements as essential and unavoidable, even though I don't particularly desire them.

 

[HowardGWR]

The M4 through Newport is, or at least used to be, horrendous. I haven't travelled there for a few years, but I used to be a regular passenge ron business trips to London. It didn't seem to matter what time or day it was, the traffic there was just so slow moving.

I do see sense in the argument that, as a vital gateway to south Wales from Bristol, London and the rest of southern England, something needs to be done.

It is also true to say that some jourenys cannot be feasibly done by public transport. When our business trips involved journeys to central London the train was our mode of choice. But for visits to places such as Barnet, Enfield or Hounslow, the convenience factor meant that road travel won hands down. Not least because we could visit more customers without the incovnenience of using local buses, and also because we caould carry more staff in the boot of the car!

Overall, I see the M4 improvements as essential and unavoidable, even though I don't particularly desire them.

The trouble is, the evidence you quote is anecdotal and from years ago. Not only that but you only quote longer distance trips, not the local ones which the consultants say in the report is the cause of M4 congestion at Newport.

I suggest respondents to the consultation tell the authorities to do their homework first before designing solutions.

 

[HSTEd]

I think you've fallen into the trap of believing roads are self-funding. We all hear how much the taxpayer funds the railways, but never the roads.
A 1996 paper showing how much more roads are subsidised than railways:
http://igreens.org.uk/great_road_transport_subsidy.htm

I'm failing at finding anything referenced that's more recent.

I did find this however - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/road-traffic-estimates-in-great-britain-2012

Note that this is before the fuel duty escalator really took effect since it uses data from 1993-1994, so when British fuel prices were some of the lowest in Europe, it also has state funding of the railways at only £1150m, which I wish was the state of affairs now.
Additionally it randomly assigns a demand that the Government should claim an 8% return on investment on the road network, apparently just to add £32bn to the 'cost column' on the side of the road network, it admits that actual government spending on the road network was only ~£5bn at the time.
That does not fill me with confidence as to the veracity of this document since it appears to have been engineered to produce this result.

Well fuel duty brings in £25.7bn.
Meanwhile the Highways Agency spends £3.7bn.

Which means if the Local Authorities in the UK spend less than £22bn on maintaining the non-trunk road network (I am pretty sure TS's road spending is a rounding error in this case) the road network is revenue positive.

I think that has a decent chance of being true.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

....and also because we caould carry more staff in the boot of the car!

Gosh, the staff at your company must have been very dedicated to the business to be willing to travel in such a manner

(Did you mean more stuff?)

 

[orpine]

Well fuel duty brings in £25.7bn.
Meanwhile the Highways Agency spends £3.7bn.

Thanks, I failed to find those numbers. - the 25.7bn is only about 4% of the budget.

 

[al78]

Note that this is before the fuel duty escalator really took effect since it uses data from 1993-1994, so when British fuel prices were some of the lowest in Europe, it also has state funding of the railways at only £1150m, which I wish was the state of affairs now.
Additionally it randomly assigns a demand that the Government should claim an 8% return on investment on the road network, apparently just to add £32bn to the 'cost column' on the side of the road network, it admits that actual government spending on the road network was only ~£5bn at the time.
That does not fill me with confidence as to the veracity of this document since it appears to have been engineered to produce this result.

Well fuel duty brings in £25.7bn.
Meanwhile the Highways Agency spends £3.7bn.

Which means if the Local Authorities in the UK spend less than £22bn on maintaining the non-trunk road network (I am pretty sure TS's road spending is a rounding error in this case) the road network is revenue positive.

I think that has a decent chance of being true.

You are neglecting the externalised costs. Motoring costs far more than the maintenance of the roads e.g. road deaths/injuries, costs of lost business revenue due to congestion, air/noise/water pollution, loss of personal freedom (i.e. car-centric planning policies forcing people to be dependant on cars, children who aren't allowed to play out because of traffic danger), I'm sure there are more.

 

[HowardGWR]

You are neglecting the externalised costs. Motoring costs far more than the maintenance of the roads e.g. road deaths/injuries, costs of lost business revenue due to congestion, air/noise/water pollution, loss of personal freedom (i.e. car-centric planning policies forcing people to be dependant on cars, children who aren't allowed to play out because of traffic danger), I'm sure there are more.

Apart from that, the duty on fuel, nor the VAT, is 'revenue' for the roads. They are just revenues. The duty on spirits is not used to treat alcohol addiction and that on tobacco is not used to treat lung cancer.

It's just another set of ways of raising revenue. You can't draw comparisons between them and the services used by payers. The largest government outgoings are on pensions, benefits and the health service. There is no specific tax levied to paid for those, which is why we have to levy the above duties.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Apart from that, the duty on fuel, nor the VAT, is 'revenue' for the roads. They are just revenues. The duty on spirits is not used to treat alcohol addiction and that on tobacco is not used to treat lung cancer.

It's just another set of ways of raising revenue. You can't draw comparisons between them and the services used by payers. The largest government outgoings are on pensions, benefits and the health service. There is no specific tax levied to paid for those, which is why we have to levy the above duties.

Well you can draw comparisons to an extent. The very fact that the government receives more money from cigarette and tobacco sales than it does to treat the costs of both combined shows that it's possible that that money is being used to do exactly that (and more). I highly doubt that the government are against reducing taxes on them out of the kindness of their hearts, rather than the economic deficit it would create.

 

[D6975]

I remember a couple of years ago a TV news reporter talking to motorists held up in traffic and asking their opinion on an improved rail service to get people off the roads.

The responses from the motorists were nearly all the same.

Along the lines of 'If it gets other people off the road so I can drive on quieter roads, I'm in favour'.

Sadly this attitude is unlikely to change until the price of fuel becomes astronomical.

 

[HSTEd]

loss of personal freedom (i.e. car-centric planning policies forcing people to be dependant on cars, children who aren't allowed to play out because of traffic danger), I'm sure there are more.

'Stranger Danger' is more prevalent than 'Traffic Danger' these days, and loss of personal freedom would surely be worse in a system where everyone used public transport because they would be required to plan things based on a rigid timetable.

Apart from that, the duty on fuel, nor the VAT, is 'revenue' for the roads. They are just revenues. The duty on spirits is not used to treat alcohol addiction and that on tobacco is not used to treat lung cancer.

It's just another set of ways of raising revenue. You can't draw comparisons between them and the services used by payers. The largest government outgoings are on pensions, benefits and the health service. There is no specific tax levied to paid for those, which is why we have to levy the above duties.

You can when stopping everyone driving would cause a drop in revenue far greater than the drop in costs from no longer having to maintain the road network, it ends up tearing a £20bn or more hole in the budget. Unless you have a reason for everyone to purchase road-taxed diesel and petrol and then use it for something other than driving?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You are neglecting the externalised costs. Motoring costs far more than the maintenance of the roads e.g. road deaths/injuries, costs of lost business revenue due to congestion, air/noise/water pollution

Loss of revenue from congestion is almost certainly massively outdone by the gain in revenue from the unprecedent degree of mobility afforded to the average member of our society by ownership of the motorcar.

It is almost impossible for a transport system to match it.

As to pollution 'costs', explain to me how reducing pollution will produce increases in the tax take anywhere near large enough to have any reasonable effect?
Motor fuel pollution is probably far less expensive than smoking related pollution and in any case lung type cancers such as the most common types cause by it are surprisingly cheap to treat. (Since in a large number of cases it is far late to do anything and you just have to pay for high power opiates).

 

[Greenback]

The trouble is, the evidence you quote is anecdotal and from years ago. Not only that but you only quote longer distance trips, not the local ones which the consultants say in the report is the cause of M4 congestion at Newport.

I quoted from my experience. I am just putting my opinion forward, not writing an academic paper!

Perhaps I am wrong, and all we need to do is to build a few more stations, and set up some more bus routes in the area. Then the short distance travellers will avoid the M4 completely, the congestion will be gone and there will be no need for a new road.

Maybe. But I'm not convinced.

Gosh, the staff at your company must have been very dedicated to the business to be willing to travel in such a manner

(Did you mean more stuff?)

Er, yes, I must learn to read what is actually there before submitting, rather than what I think is there!