Rail For A Greener Future?

[support-uk-rail]

The UK, as has the world, has recently been shaken by the rising fuel prices. Truck driver protests and record-high tax rates have been enforced - all because we've got an estimated 35-40 years worth of fuel left.

For the past 5 years, the government have tried to put people on buses and trains, and it's hardly worked. But it's no wonder. Car travel is now relatively pricey, but with prices like £109 Plymouth-London as a "very good deal" - I think not!

Surely the government needs to sort out this. Surely there should be a maximum percentage of profit allowed to be made from each fare? If this was enforced, travel would become more affordable for the average citizen and going green would become easier.

Railways are one of the more economical ways to get around these days, but with prices ever soaring, is it any wonder people travel by car?

Gordon Brown needs to get his act together if he wants to stop facing crisis'.

We need goals and targets for the rail industry. It was only until recently that the government decided to make goals for taking lorries off the roads by adding more railfreight - but this has been at the expense of passenger transport.

I'm sure if every mainline service added an extra carraige at peak hours, we could take one or more trains off the timetable each day, saving money for everyone. This, in the long term, would mean cheaper fares.

Perhaps a rail business should form that is operated by the government (haha not with Mr Brown). A non-profit business that aims at giving the price of fare equal to the price of fuel usage, and an excess cost for train leasing, staff payment etc?

Surely we should also be building more lines and extending platforms for bigger trains in future?

I find it disgusting that nothing seems to be preparing for the future when we are quite clearly facing a crisis.

Hakzi.

 

[CosherB]

Ha! We have an anti-rail attitude in government in UK (both main parties). Unlike France, Germany, Spain etc they WILL NOT commit to big rail projects. They will 'talk the talk' on green issues, but where are the high speed lines? (We have 70 miles in the entire UK - just enough to link London to Europe). Where is the electrification of the West of England line?

Politicians don't think beyond their own re-election. Major rail projects are longer term than that, so don't get a look in. :roll:

 

[Metroland]

The trouble is all this stuff takes 20-30 years to put together.

 

[O L Leigh]

Are fuel prices really that high in real terms...?

I've said this before, but when I started to drive back in 1996 the cost of a litre of unleaded was @51p. Now it's @108p. Back in 96 my job paid less than £9k, and a decent starting salary for a graduate was £12k but is now £25k. Therefore, the cost of fuel has risen by about the same amount in real terms as pay, making motoring no more expensive now than it was 12 years ago. Take into account the slashing of car prices and the highly competitive state of the insurance market, and it strikes me that motoring is cheaper now than it was a dozen years ago.

The introduction of ever more "greener" vehicles helps to assuage the car driver's guilt, which has lead to the paradoxical situation that "green" vehicles are driven more than "polluting" vehicles, thereby negating any benefits they might have otherwise brought, because their owners erroneously believe they are doing "the right thing".

At the end of the day, I wish people would stop laying the blame elsewhere and take responsibility for their own actions. Why should the Government or private industry have to provide financial or other incentives to get people out of their cars? It is the individual's responsibility to make the right decisions with regard to their own impact on the environment. There is no need to drive to a supermarket for a few items when you could walk or cycle to a local shop. Why not treat yourself to a bus trip into town instead of driving?

This is the thing that really get me going. Folk are forever banging on and on about the environment, and yet they're up in arms as soon as someone wants to put up a wind turbine within 10 miles of their home. Would they prefer a nuclear plant instead? I personally want to take these "No Second Runway for Stansted" busybodies to one side and find out precisely how many times they've actually made use of the airport themselves. Quite frankly it's hypocrisy of the highest order.

To drag this back to the point, perhaps there should be some thought given to the cost of rail tickets (particularly over longer distances) in order to make rail a more attractive option to flying or driving. However, it's not rail that will really make a huge difference to the environment. As has already been hinted at, it's the short journeys around town that could so easily be made on foot, by bicycle or not at all that seem to be the most wasteful and least necessary, and it's these sorts of journeys that rail cannot provide an alternative for.

Freight is another matter. But even then, the system of rail freight would need a wholesale rethink if it is ever going to have a chance to provide a sensible alternative to road transport. The speed and flexibility of road distribution cannot really be touched by rail except for the large-scale bulk transport of goods between two fixed points.

I'd like to be more optimistic, but I happen to think that rail's position to make a difference on an environmental front has been overplayed.

O L Leigh

 

[Metroland]

The introduction of ever more "greener" vehicles helps to assuage the car driver's guilt, which has lead to the paradoxical situation that "green" vehicles are driven more than "polluting" vehicles, thereby negating any benefits they might have otherwise brought, because their owners erroneously believe they are doing "the right thing".

Ah yes Jevon's paradox. First noted by William Stanley Jevons in his book 'The coal question'. He noted that more efficient steam engines actually ended up using an increased volume of coal, because of the relative cost saving and extra induced activity.

Can't help thinking the French are going to look very smart with their nuclear powered TGV networks though!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

In reality the government will pedal the 'we will deal with the railways (in our own time)' and 'the railway is green' lines but actually face the fact that they need people to own cars and use them. The government gets very little tax from the railway and whilst in the long term franchises will pay the government it is probably a drop in the ocean compared to the tax from the roads.

By rail, the only tax you, as a passenger, pay is if you buy a platform ticket (1.75p), car park ticket or onboard snack.

By car, you pay tax on the purchase of the car, you pay a lot of tax on fuel and then there is road tax.

Basically, if, assuming there was room, everyone went by rail, the government would very quickly lose money, so there is no incentive for Government to actually get involved.

 

[Nick279]

The western economies are controlled by those who supply the oil, why do you think we went into Iraq. The large oil companies have alternative technologies which they sit on because of the huge profits they make on oil. To get poeple to leave their cars at home, you need to provide an alternative public transport system, one which at the very least provides seats, with the baboons we have presently running our rail network, what real chance do we have?

 

[Metroland]

Western oil companies are responsible for 11% of supply, the rest is controlled by foreign governments who mostly hate the west: Russia, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Mexico, SA etc For me that the biggest reason to be investing in the alternative fuels and so on.

 

[TDK]

In reality the government will pedal the 'we will deal with the railways (in our own time)' and 'the railway is green' lines but actually face the fact that they need people to own cars and use them. The government gets very little tax from the railway and whilst in the long term franchises will pay the government it is probably a drop in the ocean compared to the tax from the roads.

By rail, the only tax you, as a passenger, pay is if you buy a platform ticket (1.75p), car park ticket or onboard snack.

By car, you pay tax on the purchase of the car, you pay a lot of tax on fuel and then there is road tax.

Basically, if, assuming there was room, everyone went by rail, the government would very quickly lose money, so there is no incentive for Government to actually get involved.

Good comments, It's the same with smoking, The government is now subsidising the "stop smoking" campaign as the NHS costs out do the tax coming in on tobacco due to the "open EC limits" not long ago they were ignoring "lets ban tobacco ads". Same with fuel at the pumps, if all new cars were dual fuel omitting the use of petrol etc the government would tax the Electricity and diesel used by the rail companies and then try to get folks out of their cars properly. I worked it out the other day in real terms I pay over 50% of my earnings in tax

 

[O L Leigh]

To make my point again, but more clearly, the real difference will be made only when individuals make their own choices more responsibly.

It shouldn't be down to the Government or big business to "incentivise" environmentally responsible behaviour. Sure, there have to be sensible alternatives, but where such alternatives already exist (public transport, cycling, "Shanks's Pony"), we should be using them.

If the tax angle really bothers people, then that should be incentive enough to behave more environmentally responsibly. "Pay less tax: Walk, cycle or take public transport."

O L Leigh

 

[CosherB]

Roads do bring in tax revenue as the poster above states, but they cost far more to build and maintain than the tax they bring in. If you add indirect costs like policing, damage to buildings, quality of life in towns and villages for non-motorists, and the horrendous cost of the many serious accidents every day, the scales very soon tip over in favour of rail (car drivers do pay their share of road costs - the big deficit comes from HGVs which inflict almost all the damage to the system, increase build costs - not least the re-building of bridges every time the weight limit goes up - and pay a fraction of those costs in tax). yes, I know it costs thousands a year for road tax for an HGV - but that comes no-where near paying their share of the costs.

No-one expects the M1 to run without considerable public subsidy. Why should rail be different? Money spent by Government on roads is called 'investment'. On rail it's called 'subsidy'. That says it all.

CS

 

[Nick279]

very well put Captain
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
"If the tax angle really bothers people, then that should be incentive enough to behave more environmentally responsibly. "Pay less tax: Walk, cycle or take public transport."

I cant carry my paperwork and laptop to the outreach venues I attend by a bike, these places are too far to walk to and what public transport system would that be, I have to drive 6 miles to the nearest metrolink station and park the car, we only have one occassional bus service from the village (apprently but I`ve never seen it) and that wonderful Dr Beeching closed my local railway station down in september 1962. I really wouldnt mind paying more tax for A public transport system, it would certainly be a novelty, much better than driving, even if I have to stand on top of a second class carraige.

 

[O L Leigh]

I cant carry my paperwork and laptop to the outreach venues I attend by a bike, these places are too far to walk to and what public transport system would that be, I have to drive 6 miles to the nearest metrolink station and park the car, we only have one occassional bus service from the village (apprently but I`ve never seen it) and that wonderful Dr Beeching closed my local railway station down in september 1962. I really wouldnt mind paying more tax for A public transport system, it would certainly be a novelty, much better than driving, even if I have to stand on top of a second class carraige.

Fair enough. I have said that there should be alternatives to taking the car but concede that there will always be sections of the community who will only be marginally served if at all.

As an aside, "Her Nibs" manages the laptop plus paperwork (and often quite a lot more besides) on a bike every day.

O L Leigh

 

[Nick279]

"As an aside, "Her Nibs" manages the laptop plus paperwork (and often quite a lot more besides) on a bike every day. "

I bet she looks a lot better than me

 

[support-uk-rail]

Why should the Government or private industry have to provide financial or other incentives to get people out of their cars? It is the individual's responsibility to make the right decisions with regard to their own impact on the environment.

O L Leigh

Because everybody is stubborn, we are going to continue to guzzle fuel, and fuel is going to run out. When it does, in the near future, all MEDCs (More Economically Developed Countries) will suffer significantly. Think about how much we rely on fuel today, and how much we rely on transport. Frankly, when this fatal event happens, the nation WILL be in trouble unless another sustainable source of fuel is found. And it's every governments duty to stop this happening, it's their job to keep the nation operating.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

By rail, the only tax you, as a passenger, pay is if you buy a platform ticket (1.75p), car park ticket or onboard snack.

By car, you pay tax on the purchase of the car, you pay a lot of tax on fuel and then there is road tax.

All private companies in the UK have to pay tax, this rule doesn't exclude rail/transport. A percentage of your ticket fare is tax.

 

[O L Leigh]

But surely it is our job to make sensible and economic use of the resources currently available rather than just frittering it away by taking the Chelsea Tractor on a two mile round-trip from home to the kids school to the supermarket and back, for example.

I'm not saying that the Government doesn't have a job to do, but why should my taxes be spoon-fed back to the wastrels to wean them off their profligate ways? We need to wake up to the reality that we are all in this thing together and that we all need to act now to stave off an energy crisis, and we need to start doing so of our own volition rather than waiting for the various "carrot and stick" measures from on high if we are to prevent adding a social crisis being added to the looming energy one.

No matter how high you make the cost of motoring, for example, by adding road pricing, pollution taxes, vehicle disposal charges and the like, and by increasing the price of fuel, VED and parking, there will always be those who can afford to maintain their wasteful ways. However, at the same time, there will be those who need to maintain a private vehicle who will be priced out. Besides, when you start going down that route the civil liberties lobby will pop up and block it. In which case we might as well all carry on as before because there will be little or nothing to prevent the country coming to a stuttering halt as the energy runs out.

O L Leigh

 

[gordonthemoron]

A percentage of your ticket fare is tax.

But only if the TOC makes a profit (corporation tax)

 

[support-uk-rail]

Yes but we won't wake up. It's been time to wake up for 25 years.

 

[CosherB]

OLL - if the government is serious about green issues they would provide an alternative to the car in the form of affordable, comfortable, and convenient public transport. For UK inter-city, that translates to a TGV-style rail service.

As things stand, most people cannot afford to use the train. Manchester - Euston open return is over £230 (£100 more for 1st class which you have to use if you want a breakfast!)! That's ridicululous! And if you need to be at a morning meeting in London you have to use an early train, and cheap deal tickets aren't valid on those, even if booked well ahead. So only people on company expenses will be travelling - the rest will use their already-paid for car and put up with a horrid 4 hour drive. It's the government's job to provide a viable alternative to the car!

CS

 

[Mojo]

It's also worth pointing out that these private companies aren't actually profiteering that much. FirstGroup, the largest British public transport company made profits of £102.1 mill in the financial year ending Mar 2007. That would get you a tram line about 7km long. Not very much at all.

First Buses in Bristol sent about about £1mill back to Group last year. FirstGroup spent £7mill on new buses last year. So assuming that bus prices go up with inflation each year, and no costs at all increase, and they don't buy anything else, that will take them 7 years to repay the "debt." They're not making that much of a profit at all.

The slashing of subsidies in the new rail franchises are the real causes of these fare hikes, and it's only set to get worse when more of these franchises move further into their repayment periods in the Govt's desire to cut rail subsidies.

 

[Nym]

By car, you pay tax on the purchase of the car, you pay a lot of tax on fuel and then there is road tax

First you earn the money on which you pay:
Income related TAX
National Insurance TAX
(Somtimes, Student Loan Repayment TAX)

Then you buy the car on which you pay:
Import duty TAX
Value added TAX

If you're borrowing the money:
Loan arrangent fee Value Added TAX

If you're using savings:
you'll have paid Interest Capital TAX on the savings

Then to drive it off you pay:
TAX on the insurance you need to buy
Road Vehicle usage TAX
(and if you're in London Congestion Charge TAX)
(and maybe Road Toll TAX)

To run it you pay:
Fuel duty TAX
Fuel value added TAX
Mainenance/Parts Value Added TAX

Then to get rid of it you pay:
Scrapping recycling TAX
or Landfill TAX (through the scrapyard)

Wonder if you get taxed on cars?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's also worth pointing out that these private companies aren't actually profiteering that much. FirstGroup, the largest British public transport company made profits of £102.1 mill in the financial year ending Mar 2007. That would get you a tram line about 7km long. Not very much at all.

First Buses in Bristol sent about about £1mill back to Group last year. FirstGroup spent £7mill on new buses last year. So assuming that bus prices go up with inflation each year, and no costs at all increase, and they don't buy anything else, that will take them 7 years to repay the "debt." They're not making that much of a profit at all.

The slashing of subsidies in the new rail franchises are the real causes of these fare hikes, and it's only set to get worse when more of these franchises move further into their repayment periods in the Govt's desire to cut rail subsidies.

Yes, but in the wider world of PPPs, such as First Group etc... How much do you think SERCO's profits where last year

Heres a few things they do:

Prisoner Tagging (not very well somtimes, but better than G4S)
Serco Railtest
SercoNed Railways
Serco Catering
Serco Defense
Serco NTCC
Serco Nuclear contracts
Serco Consulting
If serco don't do it, it's not worth doing! And 99% of their work is PPPs or Govt. paid stuff..

In 2007, the latest reports released...

Revenue
£2811m (up 10.3%)

Adjusted Profit before tax
£123.2m (up 17.3%)

That however doesn't include the board's salaeries

That was a little over 3mil in 2007

 

[CosherB]

Yes, the TOCs are not profiteering, it's government policy that translates to high fares. The duplitious Gordon Browm spouts green policy talk, imposes green taxes, while at the same time promising ever-reducing financial support to the TOCs as offical governemnt policy - so services will get worse and more expensive, and even more people will go back to their cars. Their is little the TOCs can do about that, and everything the Governemnt could do if it was serious about green issues.

Our politicans, especially this bunch, are quite dispicable! They use 'green' as an excuse to higher taxation 'for our own good' while actually impleneting very anti-green policies!:mad:

CS

 

[eezypeazy]

But surely it is our job to make sensible and economic use of the resources currently available

I'm afraid, though, Mr. Leigh, that you're forgetting that most people don't make economically rational decisions. For example, I usually cycle to work; this week, it's been raining, so I've used my car. I could have taken public transport, but that would have taken nearly three times as long as driving, and I would have got wet. The marginal cost of using my car is £3 a day in fuel, which compares favourably with the £6 return bus ticket - but we forget to add in the capital cost of the car, and the cost of the finance to buy it. Even though I plan to cycle most days, I've still bought the car for those days that are wet, or the very rare occasions that I need the car for work. I have "rationalised" that I can't do without the car; but most days it sits on my drive, doing nothing more than depreciating.

The economically rational decision would be to cycle every day, and get wet, and to hire a car when I need it. But being sensible, I don't want to get wet. I'm prepared to forego the benefit of everything else I could have done with the money, in order to buy a car and pay the associated purchase, fuel and road taxes. That's the true cost of convenience!

Ah, Economics is such a fascinating subject.....

On a related point, a few years ago a Transport Planner friend and I were discussing how to achieve true modal shift, and he summed it up fairly succinctly: "people want instantly available taxis for the price of a bus fare!"

Regards

eezypeazy

 

[Nick W]

The marginal cost of using my car is £3 a day in fuel

You must have quite a cycle on days you go by bike. 1 hour +?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Okay I think I may have, by accident rather than design, turned this into a tax thread, so sorry about that.

O L Leigh - yes companies pay tax and yes the vast majority of TOC companies tax will come from fares, but I did say as a passenger, and frankly the indirect tax thing is splitting hairs.

Nym - I was giving a brief overview of the major points as many really fail to see maintenance as a cost of running a car, besides which, including council tax and the like is frankly pointless as it applies if you have a car or not or even if you use it and is therefore constant.

I personally would go by train rather than car anyway because I can just relax and not worry about the nutters on the road, nevermind the fact that it is amongst the greenest forms of travel in the world per passenger (or driver in some cases) mile.

 

[Mojo]

But a large percentage of the population doesn't give a damn about the environment. There are also another proportion who are concerned, but don't see why they should have to make changes.

If everyone was concerned and decided to change their plans... would the system even cope? Trains in some areas and at some times of the day are busy enough as it is.

 

[O L Leigh]

Business always follows the money. If there was a change of behaviour overnight, there would be individuals and organisations who would tap into this fairly quickly I would imagine.

O L Leigh

 

[eezypeazy]

You must have quite a cycle on days you go by bike. 1 hour +?

It's twelve miles from my home in Prudhoe to the office in Hexham. On most days, I can do the journey in about 58 minutes - but a strong headwind can add a quarter of an hour.

On the other hand, I cycle along beautiful country lanes by the river bank; I get an hour's "thinking time" in which I plan my day's work; and it helps keep me fit. Priceless!


eezypeazy

 

[Metroland]

Actually I wouldn't worry about it. As prices rise, people seek alternatives or demand less anyway.

 

[Nick279]

I`m not so sure people do make their own descisions, or certainly not the right ones, many people opt for the easy way out or just burry their heads in the sand, we are all aware of climate change and everyone gives it lip service, but very few actually do anything significant about it apart from trying to follow European Environmental Directives, we humans as not unlike lemmings in many respects. But nature will certainly take her course, lets just hope that we can work along with her at her speed. The growth in technology is another interesting one, the more technology you have the less people you need to operate it, add to this the growth in the Earths population, I`m not convinced science will be the all mighty saviour, I feel we need to look seriously at the way we sustain ourselves and we have to act collectively. The economic market and nature are often diametrically opposed.