« More Blog Censorship | Main | The Cost of Rail »

Blognorance

Blognor Regis: Paved with gold

The argument that the "oppressed" "motorist" is the one being forced to cough up in order to the Government's largesse is simple to default. The bald fact is that car drivers don't even pay their own way, let alone fund a surplus that can be hosed at outreach workers for gay whales.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear - Poor old Blognor has got all caught up in the romance of steam - the simple facts are that "The net tax revenue per lane-mile for the Motorway and Trunk Road network has the range £(275-360) thousand per year. In contrast the 20,000 miles of rail track is being subsidised to perhaps £5 billion per year or at the rate of £250 thousand per track-mile... Very much against public and political sentiment roads managed to avoid congestion would offer 3 to 4 times the capacity to move freight and people at one quarter the cost of rail while using 20% to 25% less energy and reducing casualty costs suffered by rail passengers by a factor of 2.

The problem with the proposition is that (a) it is so very much against expectation (b) the numbers are so overwhelming as to inspire disbelief rather than belief (c) few people have ever seen a motor road managed to avoid congestion - the UK road network is (with the exception of motorways and some modern single carriageways) a collection of access roads never designed for motor traffic (d) rail is so romantic.

And to say nothing about push bike riders who pay nothing towards Her Majesty's Highways....

Comments

Which is all marvellous, as most fantasies are. It does nothing to change the fact that each car on the road receives a subsidy of (or at least did) around £1000 per year though.

And bicycles have absolutely nothing to do with it, a stupid of saw that isn't worth bothering to refute.

Oh, and to clarify, not that it should be needed but you appear to have got the wrong end of the stick, I'm not arguing for or against any particular transport type. I'm just trying to point out to the saloon bar sages that the great Labour tax splurge is unlikely to be being funded by "oppressed" "motorists".

"It does nothing to change the fact that each car on the road receives a subsidy of (or at least did) around £1000".

I'm a little wary of facts from activists with an agenda, especially out-of-date ones that quote Greenpeace. The link provided by The Englishman suggests this is not a fact. Who to believe? One thing I did note from the activists study is that they include the costs of coppers but don't include the revenue from fines. But using their logic that if cars weren't there, there wouldn't be car crime, surely they should have included the benefit to the country of the car industry:

"The automotive retail industry is a major contributor to the economy, with a turnover of �76 billion, a workforce of 600,000 and a 1.8 share of GDP". (http://www.dti.gov.uk/ministers/archived/johnsonm231001.html). The figures are a bit old but not as old as the activists report.

I love the "And bicycles have absolutely nothing to do with it, a stupid of saw that isn't worth bothering to refute". I don't know what "a stupid of saw" might refer to but the statement is a bit of a "because" type argument, so come on, give us a clue as to why free-loading, sanctimonious, "we're saving the planet so we can hold you up" cyclists have nothing to do with it. After all, they and buses have to use roads, as do hybrid and LPG cars.


Blognor also seems to have ignored the fact that, with the exception of utilities, absolutely everything he consumes has come by road, and unless he intends to have a railhead at every factory gate and another at every front door, this will continue to be the case. To pretend that only car drivers use the road network is to grossly mis-state the case.

Post a comment