Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Richard Hakluyt]

I've been thinking about public transport in the UK lately. It occurred to me that, although I live in Lancashire, the majority of public transport journeys I make are in London.

When we look at public transport subsidy there is a tendency to see it in terms of £ per head of population. But surely the number of regular users is a better figure?

I found these :

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/666759/annual-bus-statistics-year-ending-march-2017.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/728295/rail-passenger-crowding-2017-infographic.pdf

Slightly more than half the bus journeys made in England are made in London. The rail travel data are not comparable but it looks similar for rail journeys from the information provided.

There is a chicken and egg dimension to this of course.

So perhaps the percieved regional discrepancies in spending are not as large as at first glance.

[Josquius]

Number of regular users isn't a great figure IMO. The better you can get around with transport the more will use it.
For instance teesside Airport train station is one of the least used in the UK which would suggest teeside airport doesn't need a station.... Except the reason for this is its located a mile from the airport.
In the north you generally have no choice but to own a car vs in London they have the choice of car or transport

[Valmy]

Isn't that basically true in every country in the world? I mean I presume you can get around Moscow much easier than you can BFE Siberia.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Road congestion is an important factor too. In London you are lucky to average 10mph whereas here in the NW road is usually the fastest way to get about, even if there is a railway link. There are some obvious exceptions of course, the railway routes into Manchester desperately need a capacity increase for example; but building a fast railway link between (say) Burnley and Preston would almost certainly be a misallocation of resources.

[Josquius]

Isn't that basically true in every country in the world? I mean I presume you can get around Moscow much easier than you can BFE Siberia.

It's not siberia vs Moscow though.
It's Berlin vs  Stuttgart et al.
We aren't talking about small places here. Even pretty big urban areas have crap transport.
Get the Liverpool and Manchester area properly integrated for instance and you have a second city which is actually the size you would expect.

[Valmy]

Well in the United States the transportation networks are really bad outside of a few east coast cities...and I guess Chicago. So it is kind of same deal here.

Of course even in those cities we cannot seem to make our public transportation networks not be giant money losing boondoggles. That is bad news for any other city that would like to implement something like that. Hopefully this is different in London.

[Duque de Bragança]

Isn't that basically true in every country in the world? I mean I presume you can get around Moscow much easier than you can BFE Siberia.

It's not siberia vs Moscow though.
It's Berlin vs  Stuttgart et al.
We aren't talking about small places here. Even pretty big urban areas have crap transport.
Get the Liverpool and Manchester area properly integrated for instance and you have a second city which is actually the size you would expect.

Actually, Germany is a pretty bad example since it is federal and decentralised so even cities like Mannheim get a S-Bahn network. Stuttgart gets a much upgraded central station with the project Stuttgart XXI despite some NIMBY.

As for Russia, well there is Saint-Petersburg the second city of the country, with a well developed network though nowhere near as as extensive as Moscow.
But yes, real S-Bahn/RER in France is only found in the greater Paris area with Lyon trying to create one.

[Josquius]

Actually, Germany is a pretty bad example since it is federal and decentralised so even cities like Mannheim get a S-Bahn network. Stuttgart gets a much upgraded central station with the project Stuttgart XXI despite some NIMBY.

That's why its a good example. Its something to aim for.

[Duque de Bragança]

Actually, Germany is a pretty bad example since it is federal and decentralised so even cities like Mannheim get a S-Bahn network. Stuttgart gets a much upgraded central station with the project Stuttgart XXI despite some NIMBY.

That's why its a good example. Its something to aim for.

Alles klar.

[The Minsky Moment]

Well in the United States the transportation networks are really bad outside of a few east coast cities...and I guess Chicago. So it is kind of same deal here.

Of course even in those cities we cannot seem to make our public transportation networks not be giant money losing boondoggles. That is bad news for any other city that would like to implement something like that. Hopefully this is different in London.

In most countries, other the US, the national government bears a significant portion of the cost of public transport systems. That's a key difference. The feds will only contribute to new capital projects and even then the majority of the costs for the NYC subway are borne by the multi-state metro-transit authority, which also has responsibility for the cross-state commuter rail, the bridges and tunnels to Jersey, etc. Thus capital projects and long term maintenance are mostly financed by agency issued bonds.  When people talk about the NYC subway losing money you need to keep in mind that is after paying billions of interest costs per year on debt used to finance prior capital expenses.

I don't think the system is a boondoggle, it provides enormous economic benefits, however not all of which are captured as revenue back into the system.

Capital costs unfortunately are unusually high in NY due to the complexity and density of the underground environment and the requirement to run 24 hours 7 days a week.  "Buy America" regulations also contribute to higher costs.

[dps]

Actually, Germany is a pretty bad example since it is federal and decentralised so even cities like Mannheim get a S-Bahn network. Stuttgart gets a much upgraded central station with the project Stuttgart XXI despite some NIMBY.

That's why its a good example. Its something to aim for.

I didn't picture you as a fan of decentralization and federalism.

[Josquius]

Actually, Germany is a pretty bad example since it is federal and decentralised so even cities like Mannheim get a S-Bahn network. Stuttgart gets a much upgraded central station with the project Stuttgart XXI despite some NIMBY.

That's why its a good example. Its something to aim for.

I didn't picture you as a fan of decentralization and federalism.

Why not?
I've always been big on federalising the UK and then there's the EU of course. Hoping for a world government not too distantly into the future.

[grumbler]

Actually, Germany is a pretty bad example since it is federal and decentralised so even cities like Mannheim get a S-Bahn network. Stuttgart gets a much upgraded central station with the project Stuttgart XXI despite some NIMBY.

That's why its a good example. Its something to aim for.

I didn't picture you as a fan of decentralization and federalism.

Tyr is a centralizing federalist.

I'm not sure the Midlands will get all he hopes for if it becomes autonomous and self-financing.

[Threviel]

Actually, Germany is a pretty bad example since it is federal and decentralised so even cities like Mannheim get a S-Bahn network. Stuttgart gets a much upgraded central station with the project Stuttgart XXI despite some NIMBY.

That's why its a good example. Its something to aim for.

I didn't picture you as a fan of decentralization and federalism.

Tyr is a centralizing federalist.

I'm not sure the Midlands will get all he hopes for if it becomes autonomous and self-financing.

In Sweden there's a lot of hydropower up north. There's not much else there so people are generally communist welfare bums. In general of course. A common argument up there is that the hydropower finances Sweden and if they only could reap the benefits they would be rich, oh so rich. Last election there was a TV-debate in a small town where the mayor tried to argue just that. Someone had done the calculations, and apparently they got something like twice the hydropower money in financial support from the government.

So yeah, give them the hydropower money and let them care for themselves, it would only benefit everyone else.

I imagine that no-one would be more happy for an autonomous Midlands than the Londoners.

[garbon]

What does northern Sweden's hydropower situation have to do with the Midlands?