In message , at 10:41:44 on
Fri, 13 May 2016, remarked:

Besides like hundreds of miles of other line it had closed before he
was appointed though people always seem to blame Beeching for them.

I always wonder what people would have thought of Beeching had he
recommended an insufficient number of cuts and BR was then forced into
the equivalent of receivership with only the Intercity lines (and a few
commuter services on the same rails) surviving.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:48:36 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:41:44 on
Fri, 13 May 2016, remarked:

Besides like hundreds of miles of other line it had closed before he
was appointed though people always seem to blame Beeching for them.

I always wonder what people would have thought of Beeching had he
recommended an insufficient number of cuts and BR was then forced into
the equivalent of receivership with only the Intercity lines (and a few
commuter services on the same rails) surviving.

Thats a bit like saying the Highways Agency would go into receivership because
the roads cost too much to repair. The only difference is governments are
happy to throw money at roads but not rail even though both bring massive
2ndary economic benefits.

--
Spud

In message , at 10:23:51 on Fri, 13 May
2016, d remarked:

Besides like hundreds of miles of other line it had closed before he
was appointed though people always seem to blame Beeching for them.

I always wonder what people would have thought of Beeching had he
recommended an insufficient number of cuts and BR was then forced into
the equivalent of receivership with only the Intercity lines (and a few
commuter services on the same rails) surviving.

Thats a bit like saying the Highways Agency would go into receivership because
the roads cost too much to repair. The only difference is governments are
happy to throw money at roads but not rail even though both bring massive
2ndary economic benefits.

I don't think it's at all like the roads, because the mobility provided
by mass car usage also gathers a vast amount of tax. The problem (and
still is) with railways is they don't pay their way, and there has to
come a point when if the subsidy becomes unsustainable that governments
back in the day would have had no option but to pull the plug.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 13 May 2016 13:20:35 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:23:51 on Fri, 13 May
2016, d remarked:

Besides like hundreds of miles of other line it had closed before he
was appointed though people always seem to blame Beeching for them.

I always wonder what people would have thought of Beeching had he
recommended an insufficient number of cuts and BR was then forced into
the equivalent of receivership with only the Intercity lines (and a few
commuter services on the same rails) surviving.

Thats a bit like saying the Highways Agency would go into receivership because
the roads cost too much to repair. The only difference is governments are
happy to throw money at roads but not rail even though both bring massive
2ndary economic benefits.

I don't think it's at all like the roads, because the mobility provided
by mass car usage also gathers a vast amount of tax. The problem (and
still is) with railways is they don't pay their way, and there has to
come a point when if the subsidy becomes unsustainable that governments
back in the day would have had no option but to pull the plug.

I doubt roads pay their way either even after road and fuel tax have been
taken into account. The M25 widening alone is costing over £100 million a year.
But the fact that roads bring economic benefits is a given as far as
governments are concerned - railways however they seem to think are a
nice-to-have even though in the major cities they're probably the 1st or 2nd
most popular method of commuting.

--
Spud

In message , at 13:06:58 on Fri, 13 May
2016, d remarked:

I doubt roads pay their way either even after road and fuel tax have been
taken into account. The M25 widening alone is costing over £100 million a year.

Fuel Duty alone is 28 billion, and that doesn't include the 5.6bn VAT on
duty. VED is another (roughly) £6bn.
--
Roland Perry

Plus the VAT on spare parts and service charges, plus the
surcharge on insurance premiums which George Osborne
increased to 9%.

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 13:06:58 on Fri, 13 May
2016, d remarked:

I doubt roads pay their way either even after road and fuel tax have been
taken into account. The M25 widening alone is costing over £100 million
a year.

Fuel Duty alone is 28 billion, and that doesn't include the 5.6bn VAT
on duty. VED is another (roughly) £6bn.

Road costs far exceed that. you are overlooking policing and health costs
for a start.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 13/05/2016 18:05, Robin9 wrote:
Roland Perry;155705 Wrote:
In message , at 13:06:58 on Fri, 13 May
2016, d remarked:
-
I doubt roads pay their way either even after road and fuel tax have
been
taken into account. The M25 widening alone is costing over £100 million
a year.-

Fuel Duty alone is 28 billion, and that doesn't include the 5.6bn VAT on

duty. VED is another (roughly) £6bn.
--
Roland Perry

Plus the VAT on spare parts and service charges, plus the
surcharge on insurance premiums which George Osborne
increased to 9%.

Why not include the VAT on the vehicle itself? If we didn't have roads,
people wouldn't buy cars....

In message , at 19:22:50
on Fri, 13 May 2016, remarked:

I doubt roads pay their way either even after road and fuel tax have been
taken into account. The M25 widening alone is costing over £100 million
a year.

Fuel Duty alone is 28 billion, and that doesn't include the 5.6bn VAT
on duty. VED is another (roughly) £6bn.

Road costs far exceed that. you are overlooking policing and health costs
for a start.

Roads also allow the police to get to burglaries, and for ambulances to
get to patients and hospitals.

Do you have any numbers for your "costs" above? Apparently the Highways
Agency spends £1.5bn a year, and councils £3.1bn on road maintenance.
--
Roland Perry

You'e in danger here of putting out the same red herrings
the anti-motor car brigade is so fond of.

Very rarely does anyone quantify the full road costs, but
on the few occasions anyone was so rash, their figures
were quickly disproved. The revenue raised from motorists
goes to the Treasury but local roads are the responsibility
of local councils who have their own revenue streams.
So when the total cost of all roads is calculated, the input
from local authorities should not be ignored. It should also
be remembered that much of the expenditure today on roads
has nothing to do with motor vehicles, e.g the cycle super
highways or the disgraceful "mini-Holland" schemes now
blighting The London Borough Of Waltham Forest, and
therefore that expenditure should not be set against the
revenue from motorists.

Similarly, the policing and health decoy should be taken with
a very large pinch of salt. First, motorists do not only pay
motor related taxes. They also pay the same taxes other
people pay, and that combined tax revenue pays for police
and health services. Second, if money were not spent on roads,
police and health costs would go up, not down. Third, the health
consequences of motoring are far higher than necessary because
of decisions by anti-motor car politicians. (I note with great
optimism that the new Mayor seems to have noticed this)

Most important of all, spending money on roads is far cheaper
than financing a hopelessly inadequate public transport alternative.