7 ms·
I believe that the plan is to run both as the current line is over capacity. As an avid UK train user, but not frequently on that route I support high speed ra
by d4rti 13y ago
I believe that the plan is to run both as the current line is over capacity.
As an avid UK train user, but not frequently on that route I support high speed rail plans in general.
I'd like them to build the phases in the opposite order - first the links in the North, then down to London.
A sad fact of the rail privatization, and the rail in general is that governments seem to prefer the large infrastructure projects rather than ongoing subsidy. From an environmental standpoint commuting by train should be much cheaper than by car, but for many places in the UK it is far more expensive.
- michaelt 13y agoWhat I can't figure out is: If rail is so efficient and road travel so inefficient, why is it that rail travel costs more than road travel, even when the government subsidises rail companies and heavily taxes fuel and parking?
- mseebach 13y agoRail is environmentally efficient over low occupancy car travel. It's not very economically efficient, in part because the infrastructure is bigger, more expensive and more complicated, in part because politicians force train operators to operate a comprehensive schedule, not just when it's economically viable.
- Goronmon 13y agoin part because politicians force train operators to operate a comprehensive schedule, not just when it's economically viable. I assume that's because the fewer trains there are over the course of a day (or weekend), the harder it is for people to use the train as a substitute for personal transportation and the less likely people will rely on the trains in general.
- mseebach 13y agoYeah, in theory, and possible also in some practices, but you also end up with an impenetrable mesh of cross-subsidies that raise the cost of some routes that might be economical in their own regard to subsidise other links but not enough to make them solid alternatives. And then suddenly you have to compete with low-cost airlines and bus services that don't have this subsidy complexity and are much more agile - recipe for disaster.
- lincolnq 13y agoFrustrating, isn't it? To be fair, subway travel in dense cities like NYC tends to be substantially cheaper than road travel in most cases. (Think taxi vs. subway -- the taxi can sometimes, but not always, get you there faster, but you'll pay a lot more. If you have multiple people in the taxi it becomes more competitive though.) Also, are you counting the cost of the car? If you don't have to buy/rent the car then road travel might look cheaper than it is. Nonetheless, in general I agree with you. I suspect there's a greater demand for rail travel, pushing prices up. Nearly everyone I know prefers rail when they can, since they don't have to drive or sit in traffic, but chooses road often, primarily for cost and convenience reasons.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago1) Was under the impression that NYC subway system receives massive subsidies? 2) Private minibus, illegal everywhere in the US, would be cheap like a city bus and of course much faster than the subway.
- vidarh 13y agoThe train subsidies differs greatly by region. For "my" rail company, the fees were flowing in the other direction over the last year - Southern paid an average 0.6p per passenger mile. For my part at least, my travel card is a bargain compared to what owning and operating a card would have cost me.
- lgieron 13y agoMost road are paid for with taxes and no additional fee from the drivers is necessary? (while train operators need to pay the fee for using the rails).
- dworin 13y agoMost gasoline taxes, which are a loose proxy for miles driven, go to pay for roads and highways (although other funds are used too).
- aestra 13y agoGas taxes don't come close to covering the expense of the roads. http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pay-only-third-state-local-road-spending http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pa...
- kevcampb 13y agoI would imagine economics of scale plays a significant part. If there was a lot more people travelling by rail, it would be cheaper- increased capacity implied
- michaelt 13y agoI was getting an off-peak train from near London into central London. The train is often packed, with people left standing, and I can only imagine it's even busier at peak times. Many train lines are at or near maximum capacity and need more investment, if you believe the claims used to justify regular above-inflation rail fare increases. If economies of scale make them profitable, they should be making money hand over fist. I'm not convinced economies of scale are the problem.
- tsotha 13y agoBut those packed routes have to subsidize lower volume routes where off-peak cars will be nearly empty.
- pjc50 13y agoIt's more _energy_ efficient, but also much more expensive to maintain. Partly because it's held to more serious safety standards, and partly because it's so much harder to route around difficulties. Signalling is a major maintenance money sink: a distributed safety system that must be completely reliable. (Parking is rarely heavily taxed and often "free" - where were you thinking of?)
- michaelt 13y agoPerhaps I should have been clearer about the parking. Here in the UK, particularly in London parking is often non-free. In some areas, councils have adopted policies of not granting planning permission for workplace car parking spaces, or making planning permission conditional on there being a certain charge, in order to increase the costs of driving. I agree that this is not technically a direct tax, but it is an example of government intervention to increase the costs of driving.
- Pxtl 13y agoFighting against parking is more complicated than that. Parking moves buildings further apart, making them more difficult to service with transit/pedestrian/bike services. Urban services require dense construction, and parking lots are the opposite of density.
- michaelt 13y agoIf the policy was that single-level outdoor carparks were denied while underground and multistorey car parking was allowed (or less discouraged) I'd agree with you. But it's my understanding that is not the case.
- Retric 13y agoRoads are free to use which is a ridiculously huge subsidy. Also, driving is a lot more expensive than you might think it just involves a lot of sunk costs which people ignore. EX: Driving a cheap car 15,000 miles per year with 3$ gas 30mpg = 1,500$. Except insurance is ~90$ a month which adds 1,080$ a year. A combination of maintenance / car payments / depreciation runs around 200$ a month adding 2,400$ a year. Live in town that's generally 100$ a month (12,00$/year) for parking at your apartment which is generally close to break-even for an apartment complex. Ignoring other fees like tolls etc your talking about 6,180$ a year for 15,000 miles or 41.2 cents a mile which is far from cheap.
- gaius 13y agoExcept in the UK, 80p of every pound you spend on petrol is tax. The road system is very well funded.
- mseebach 13y agoHere are the numbers: Public Expenditure on Roads and Public Transport, 2007-08: £21b Total motoring taxation: £46b (estimate) So, just to make it clear, AFTER paying for the roads AND public spending on public transport, motorists contribute a solid £25b to the budget. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtran/103/10305.htm http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/c...
- Retric 13y agoAs long as you ignore the fact the UK is not keeping up with the full costs of maintaining there roads as well as the value of all that land and all the past construction costs then it looks good. Because, maintaining an all that aging infrastructure is not that expensive but building it was. Don't forget £11.911 billion (56%) was capital expenditure when you might think most roads and bridges you want built have already been built. Edit: By not keeping up with infrastructure I mean the average age of there infrastructure is increasing which is not really a bad thing as replacing things early wastes cash but depredation is a real cost.
- 7952 13y agoThe problem with roads is congestion. It would make more sense to create new roads, but limit their use to coaches and HGVs. This would reduce congestion on existing roads, and provide more point-to-point capacity. Trains are great if you want to travel between places on a fast main-line but most journeys are more complicated than that.
- 6d0debc071 13y agoThe only people who get to play are the ones the government lets use the track. Even if they would let you play you need a lot of money up front. Effectively closed market, high cost of entry, the gov demands money from them for the privilege so has an incentive to not bring prices down.... And if you choose not to use it the gov gets you again on fuel tax. I suspect whatever the underlying economics were it would be expensive. It's essentially a monopoly with a, from an end user standpoint, perverse incentive structure.
- ceras 13y agoIn the US at least, government subsidizes driving quite a bit. Mandatory free parking is one of the biggest examples: building parking on all roads (which has an indirect tax on alternative transportation methods by reducing density -- worse for walking, biking, buses, and trains); forcing commercial developers to create free parking lots; etc. Gas taxes also do not cover the entire costs of roads, nor do they cover the environmental costs. In the US they're also free of sales tax -- another subsidy compared to other goods, though shared by many transportation options. All that aside, like another commenter said, in a place like Manhattan driving is definitely the more expensive option. This would be true elsewhere if more areas did not subsidize driving or have policies outlawing the density necessary for alternative transportation methods to succeed.
- makomk 13y agoThere's plenty of ongoing subsidy for trains in the UK, it's just going in the shareholders' pockets rather than towards lower prices.