Oct 2009 20

Greengauge217

In the BBC report today on our new study on transport spending one of the more prominent groups opposing our views is "Greengauge21, which promotes the development of a high-speed rail network in the UK".  That isn't a campaign we've come across before, so I took a look at their website and this is how they describe themselves:

"Greengauge21 has no vested interest and is not seeking to be part of any direct beneficiary (construction company, operating company etc.). It is a registered company, limited by guarantee, that seeks to act in what it believes is the national and the public interest, by bringing forward the necessary data and arguments so that a debate can take place, so that the many parties that should be involved in such a ground-breaking initiative are fully informed."

When they say that they have no vested interests, that is a bit specious.  Their staff are transport consultants, at least one of them is still working as a consultant, probably for a train company.  The development of their website - and we're guessing the group in general - is funded by the Railway Forum, which is a railway company trade association.  Its website says that the "Railway Forum has membership across the whole of the UK railway industry".

Their response to our report is very weak:

"But Jim Steer, from Greengauge21, which promotes the development of a high-speed rail network in the UK, said roads were rightly second in terms of spending.

"Rail use has been growing faster than car use over the last 10 years or so," he told the BBC News website.

"You might say that's precisely because we don't invest as much in roads, but the truth of the matter is that it's now clear that it's a mug's game to try to invest enough in the road network to meet rising demand. You just can't do it.

"It's perfectly possible to get a good rail system in this country – it's an achievable thing – but to keep trying to expand the road network is impractical."

Rail use may have grown faster, but the trains are still carrying far, far fewer passenger kilometres, as our report showed.  Mr. Steer just asserts that expanding the road network is impractical without any explanation of why.  At the moment, the roads are moving ten times as many people for every pound of public spending they receive, that shows they are a far more practical means of easing congestion on the transport network than rail.

"Motorists should welcome investment in Britain's railways as it is one of the best ways to reduce congestion on the roads," he added."

Given that the roads move ten times as many people per pound spent, and money is tight, investment in roads is a much better way of reducing congestion on the roads than spending on the railways.

Clearly the vested interests have lined up to attack our report, but they are a little short on evidence.

Related Posts

  • Brian Smith

    Government spending on railways is a national scandal brought about by the last vestiges of a commitment to a “romantic” age (of steam, hardy stokers, flat caps etc) that has long since gone.
    Fast, modern point to point rail schemes have their place but they will never get built in this country where we are bananas (“build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone”) about construction.
    And anyway, the annual subsidy – £12Bn? – isn’t spent on those sort of railway provisions, it’s wasted on local services running through rotten boroughs where the money – our taxes – is considered good value for the votes it buys.
    We haven’t built a significant motorway scheme in this country for 20 years; major conurbations/entrepots like Norwich, Cheltenham & Gloucester, Plymouth, Ipswich, Newcastle, Barrow still have no motorway links to the rest of the network.
    And the latest wheeze is to downgrade what motorways we have to dual carriageways by converting the hard shoulder into a running lane and hang the safety implications (which the railway industry will seize on, inevitably, to demonstrate how unsafe motorways are compared to rail travel).
    The transport hell holes that are greater London, greater Birmingham, Leeds/Bradford, Manchester/Liverpool will remain just that for as long as the powerful, irrational force that is “the railway” remains such a major player in national transport politics.
    What’s right for the geography of France, Germany, Spain and, possibly, Italy, is wrong for this densely populated country where 50 million people are concentrated into an area not much bigger than a German state or a couple of French departements and where, unlike Spain, there is no central desert to traverse.
    The answer for central England – which is what we are really talking about – is a sophisticated motorway network with advanced signalling and some minimalist pricing mechanism to ensure optimum usage levels.
    Railways are yesterday’s answer and have little or no relevance to today’s challenges.

  • mervyn

    There don’t appear to be any extra costs in the report against road traffic accidents, deaths, injuries etc. and how these are paid for.
    How much extra does this add to the figure? Is it offset by anything not covered in the rail costs?
    thanks

  • http://www.taxpayersalliance.com Matthew Sinclair

    mervyn,
    Charging motorists for the social costs of particulate emissions and accidents means singling them out to an incredible degree.
    We don’t charge rugby players, factories or charity parachutists (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T78-3Y8WK2S-1M&_coverDate=05/31/1999&_alid=392341591&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5052&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5a0b3e917ed37a5b5971fd5fa0e21315) for the burden they impose on the NHS by injuring themselves. In every other area, we regulate for safety in order to ensure that people don’t behave recklessly and then simply accept that all sorts of people, thanks to all sorts of behaviours, increase or decrease their health risk and don’t apply special taxes. Clearly motorists bear a massive regulatory burden aimed at delivering safety – from speed cameras to driving tests – and taxing them as well would mean singling them out for additional punishment.
    Equally, particulate emissions, like noise pollution, are controlled to certain levels by regulation governing – for example – the planning process and the requirement to fit catalytic converters. This is again the same process that applies to every other business from bowling lanes to steelworks.
    We set out more detail on this sort of issue in our larger report on green taxes:
    http://tpa.typepad.com/home/files/the_burden_of_green_taxes.pdf
    Best,
    Matt

  • http://www.taxpayersalliance.org/ Clifford Singer

    TPA criticises another campaign group for not being clear about who funds it. LOL!

  • http://www.mo.com mo

    Bit rich coming from the TPA, who have failed to show where their funding comes from.

  • http://www.taxpayersalliance.com Matthew Sinclair

    Clifford & mo,
    I wasn’t criticising them for the amount of information they provided, but pointed out that they are supported by the industry they’re defending. And, that it is therefore innacurate for them to claim that they do not have vested interests.
    Best,
    Matt

  • http://profile.typepad.com/6p0120a6396073970c fabadger.blogspot.com

    Anyone that states they have no vested interest invites ridicule. Their interest is plain as day at a single glance of their website.
    That said however…
    Why did the taxpayer’s alliance only collaborate with the Driver’s alliance for research on effective use of the transport budget? How was that ever going to produce a balanced outcome?
    The inference of the research is that the budget should be balanced per passenger kilometre. Where is the supporting evidence that demonstrates investing 10 times more on the road or 1/10th as much on rail is the winning formula for taxpayers?