Funding disparity

[Dolive22]

The IPPR have just been on You and Yours on Radio 4 talking about a report saying that over £2,500 is spent per person per year on rail in London and the south east, and only £5 in the North East. What does everyone think? How much more should be spent on London than other regions? Are the figures true?

 

[YorkshireBear]

If the figures are true then i think that is a bit much of a difference. I really do. I think London deserves more certainly, and a lot more but this seems a bit much. Of course in the NE alot of the people don't use the train whereas in London many do, heavily biassing the results.

It would be interesting to see the amount spent per passenger rather than population.

 

[tbtc]

over £2,500 is spent per person per year on rail in London and the south east, and only £5 in the North East

Two main questions:

• What does this figure relate to? Is it all railway investments and subsidies? Or just infrastructure spending? There's not been a huge amount of new infrastructure in the North East of England since privatisation (if you count the Metro extension to Wearside as a "light rail" investment rather than a "rail" investment), but there have been subsidies to existing services and new trains (185s, 221s, 222s).
  
• As YorkshireBear says, is this per person or per passenger? People in London tend to use trains a lot more than those in the North East of England.

Interesting figures, but devil is in the detail.

 

[cle]

Equally, I'd be keen to know about road spends - maintenance and capital expenditure, per person (not per car or driver)?

I bet it would be skewed the other way - and fair enough.

 

[SWTCommuter]

Here's a link to the latest edition of the IPPR North's report

www.ippr.org/publication/55/10933/s...port-infrastructure-spending?siteid=ipprnorth

and the Treasury's response to the 2011 version

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmtran/writev/regbreak/m03.htm


Enjoy...

 

[W230]

Off we go again...

 

[Mikey C]

Of course Londoners would say the real disparity is the amount of tax paid by people in London and the South east etc

 

[michael769]

I bet it would be skewed the other way - and fair enough.

It's not I am afraid. The figures mentioned in the OP relate to all transport related projects and not just to rail.

And it is not just the north that is short changed. The South East (excluding london) which comes 2nd place only musters £714 with the third place trailing at £218.94.

London sucks up almost twice as much investment than the rest of England combined!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Of course Londoners would say the real disparity is the amount of tax paid by people in London and the South east etc

Which SHOULD reflect the higher earnings in London and the South East, but probably doesn't...

If they don't like paying so much tax they can get a job at McDonalds or something... :roll:

 

[transmanche]

London sucks up almost twice as much investment than the rest of England combined!

Surely the whole point is that investment is made where it is most needed. Not by the amount of tax paid in any specific area.

As more bus journeys are made in London that the total for the rest of the country. And more journeys made on London Underground than the whole of the National Rail network. It then becomes obvious that London's transport infrastructure requires more investment than other parts of the country.

Denying that is like saying it's wrong that the NHS spends far more money on sick people than it does on people who are healthy...

 

[michael769]

As more bus journeys are made in London that the total for the rest of the country. And more journeys made on London Underground than the whole of the National Rail network. It then becomes obvious that London's transport infrastructure requires more investment than other parts of the country.

But the figure is not for public transport. It is for all transport public and private.

 

[W230]

If they don't like paying so much tax they can get a job at McDonalds or something... :roll:

Or on this basis, if people in the North East want higher expenditure on their public transport they should move to the South East!

It's swings and roundabouts. Just like these sorts of things are across every walk of life.

 

[transmanche]

Surely the whole point is that investment is made where it is most needed. Not by the amount of tax paid in any specific area.

As more bus journeys are made in London that the total for the rest of the country. And more journeys made on London Underground than the whole of the National Rail network. It then becomes obvious that London's transport infrastructure requires more investment than other parts of the country.

Denying that is like saying it's wrong that the NHS spends far more money on sick people than it does on people who are healthy...

But the figure is not for public transport. It is for all transport public and private.

And? I said that "...London's transport infrastructure requires more investment than other parts of the country". That includes all forms of transport.

 

[Oswyntail]

....As more bus journeys are made in London that the total for the rest of the country. And more journeys made on London Underground than the whole of the National Rail network. It then becomes obvious that London's transport infrastructure requires more investment than other parts of the country.....

That doesn't really follow. It is chicken and egg, really - are more journeys made using the infrastructure because the infrastructure is there.
The great unknown is what effect additional infrastructure would have on travel habits outside the SE. There are some encouraging indications from the few, relatively small scale projects that have gone ahead. But no one is bold enough to go for critical mass. So the easy option of funding the SE continues, and continues to be self-perpetuating via surveys like this.

 

[cmjcf]

And? I said that "...London's transport infrastructure requires more investment than other parts of the country". That includes all forms of transport.

Those figures are per person. Are you suggesting individual people's needs in London are 500 times more than those in some other areas?

 

[michael769]

And? I said that "...London's transport infrastructure requires more investment than other parts of the country". That includes all forms of transport.

What evidence is there to support this?

 

[Simon11]

Those figures are per person. Are you suggesting individual people's needs in London are 500 times more than those in some other areas?

I assume the figures on people are based on the number of people who live there. Does it include the tourists, commuters from outside london, business travellers etc

 

[transmanche]

Those figures are per person. Are you suggesting individual people's needs in London are 500 times more than those in some other areas?

In the same way that some people's health needs are 500 times more than others...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What evidence is there to support this?

Already covered that...

As more bus journeys are made in London that the total for the rest of the country. And more journeys made on London Underground than the whole of the National Rail network. It then becomes obvious that London's transport infrastructure requires more investment than other parts of the country

 

[cmjcf]

In the same way that some people's health needs are 500 times more than others...

Go on ...

 

[transmanche]

Go on ...

See post #10.

 

[cmjcf]

See post #10.

With the greatest of respect, that's a really silly analogy.

 

[transmanche]

With the greatest of respect, that's a really silly analogy.

No it's simplified to make a point.

It makes no sense to have per capita spending on transport the same in all cities, towns and villages across the UK, because transport needs are different in different places. Suggesting that per capita spending on transport should be equal across the UK is as daft as suggesting that NHS should spend the same on every person - people have different health needs and thus spending per person varies according their needs.

That's the whole point of a nation state: everyone pays into a central pot - and spending from that pot is based on the need for various services.

Let's pick a public transport example. 14 years ago there was no tube station at Canary Wharf. It's now the 10th busiest station on the network, handling around 50 million passengers a year. But building it (and the rest of the Jubilee line extension) was a tad expensive - approx £3.5bn, or something approaching £500 for every man, woman and child in London.

Would spending that amount of money in, say, Manchester achieve the same 'benefit'? Bear in mind that Canary Wharf handles almost double the number of passengers as Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Victoria combined. (Yes, I am aware they are different types of station, so not directly comparable - but it helps to give some perspective.) That's not to say that Manchester doesn't need spending on transport infrastructure (the Northern Hub improvements can't come soon enough for me) but the sheer scale of transport infrastructure requirements in and around London is staggering.

Also it hasn't helped that many big schemes were delayed for many years, adding to their costs. The Thameslink Programme was originally called Thameslink 2000 - that being the year it was meant to be finished, not the length of time it was going to take. Crossrail was being planned in the late 1980s/early 1990s.

 

[cmjcf]

No it's simplified to make a point.

... and it's still really silly.

Suggesting that per capita spending on transport should be equal

... which nobody has done, therefore you're wrong.

approaching £500 for every man, woman and child in London.

Would spending that amount of money in, say, Manchester achieve the same 'benefit'?

£500 for every man, woman and child in Manchester is £250m. To put that into perspective, the entire first two phases of Metrolink (up to 2000) cost £300m. So yes, I'd say that this level of funding in Manchester has achieved the same if not more benefit for the population of the city.

but the sheer scale of transport infrastructure requirements in and around London is staggering.

The scale of the requirements is something to do with the increased population.

 

[michael769]

Already covered that...

That is an opinion not evidence.

In my opinion that higher levels of public transport usage and greater loadings mean that public transport is able to run on a commercial footing (ie without subsidy) and wonder why more commercially viable services benefit from such grossly disproportionate subsidy.

Furthermore I would suggest that the high levels of usage in London mean that public transport works well for Londoners and thus does not require the levels of investment that it does in parts of the country where it does not work well (and thus is less well used).

But even if we do accept greater need in London is it really twice as great as the entire remainder of the country (including the rest of the South East) put together? Given how poor public transport is in the rest of the country I would argue it is not.

In my opinion London sucks the life out of the rest of the country, thanks to inwards looking selfish politicians and a blinkered insular media lead by the BBC whose journalists seem to sometimes struggle with the concept that people outside of Richmond do not still live in caves.

 

[transmanche]

... and it's still really silly.

In your opinion. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That is an opinion not evidence.

Er, it's a fact.

 

[tbtc]

I would suggest that the high levels of usage in London mean that public transport works well for Londoners and thus does not require the levels of investment that it does in parts of the country

So, because London already has high useage, London doesn't need further investment?

Look at how busy services actually are in London (compared to the "overcrowded" services that people complain about in the rest of the UK that often means "I had to stand for part of the journey").

Look at how costly it is to improve services in London (due to the cost of land, the fact that it's disproportionately harder to increase capacity of a twelve coach train than it is to extend the length of a service run by a Pacer etc) compared to modest improvements elsewhere in the UK.

And look at all of the spending that we are going to have over the rest of the decade, nine hundred miles of electrification (almost all outside London) etc.

 

[transmanche]

£500 for every man, woman and child in Manchester is £250m.

£500 for every man, woman and child in Greater Manchester is approx £1.35bn. I used Greater London in my example - not the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. So let's compare 'county levels' rather than borough levels.

To put that into perspective, the entire first two phases of Metrolink (up to 2000) cost £300m

Which makes it about £110 for each man, woman and child in Greater Manchester.

So yes, I'd say that this level of funding in Manchester has achieved the same if not more benefit for the population of the city.

Thus demonstrating that the transport infrastructure needs are less than Greater London - as Greater Manchester has no need for an equivalent to Canary Wharf station. (Which on its own handles double the number of passengers of the entire Metrolink system.)

 

[starrymarkb]

As a bus example - TfL Buses get £374m per year subsidy (some from Central Government) - outside London funding is much lower - maybe £2/3m per county (and none from Central Government)

Why should buses in say Manchester be expected to pay their way and therefore get chopped and changed with high fares when London's network is fully subsidised and regulated with low fares*. Maybe that's why bus use is declining while London's is growing.

 

[route:oxford]

Independence for the North!

These arguments are always hopeless without all the details and consequences...

 

[transmanche]

As a bus example - TfL Buses get £374m per year subsidy (some from Central Government) - outside London funding is much lower - maybe £2/3m per county (and none from Central Government)

I have up trying to understand the funding of transport authorities a long time ago as it's extremely difficult to ascertain the true cost to the taxpayer of bus subsidies. For example, I believe that in Greater Manchester the local authorities receive their block grant from central government - and they pass on the transport portion of the money to TfGM to subsidise services, etc. But it doesn't work that way in London, where I believe the government gives its transport grant directly to TfL - not via the local authorities.