A new report by think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs looks at an alternative to expanding the rail network in the UK.
The report, Paving over the tracks: a better use of Britain’s railways?, by Paul Withrington and Richard Wellings outlines how commuters could pay over 40 per cent less for their journeys and more passengers could enjoy the luxury of a seat if the industry was sufficiently liberalised to allow some commuter railways in London to be converted into busways.
The success of the bu
A new report by think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs looks at an alternative to expanding the rail network in the UK.
The report, Paving over the tracks: a better use of Britain’s railways?, by Paul Withrington and Richard Wellings outlines how commuters could pay over 40 per cent less for their journeys and more passengers could enjoy the luxury of a seat if the industry was sufficiently liberalised to allow some commuter railways in London to be converted into busways.
The success of the bus rapid transit schemes in Latin America and Asia illustrates that viable high-capacity transport alternatives exist and at a fraction of the cost of railways, subways or trams.
Current government spending on the rail network costs the taxpayer US$9 billion a year and benefits rail companies at the expense of passengers, who often receive poor value for money. Heavy subsidies, rigid state control and powerful interest groups have distorted the industry, resulting in alternative modes of transport being ignored despite their often huge potential for improved capacity and cost reduction.
The transport sector currently lags behind other industries, which have been improved through the exploitation of more efficient technologies. If politicians are serious about increasing capacity on commuter routes and reducing fares, they should embrace innovative and low cost alternatives, with the aim of relinquishing control over the sector altogether. Moving towards a more flexible, market-led approach would also enable the phasing out of government support, making the taxpayer vastly better off.
The report claims that converting railways to busways is a viable alternative, saying it would increase capacity, improve journey times and reduce both fares and operating and infrastructure costs.
The authors say that transport spending has been misallocated on a grand scale: The support received by the rail industry is disproportional to its importance to travellers. Individuals in the UK are far more likely to travel by car than train, with 90 per cent of passengers and 70 per cent of freight traffic carried by roads. Despite this disparity, state funding of railways is just 30 per cent lower than that spent on roads.
Approximately 40 per cent of spending on the heavy rail network is government funded. This generous subsidisation of the rail industry has fuelled special interest groups and hampered efforts to embrace innovative alternatives in public transport. The result has been policy decisions that have reflected political priorities rather than economic logic, causing viable alternatives to rail transport to be disregarded or ignored.
Commenting on the research, co-author and head of Transport at the Institute of Economic Affairs, Dr Richard Wellings, said: “Ongoing interference by politicians in the rail industry has led to everyone getting a raw deal. Passengers face increasingly expensive fares only to fight their way onto trains during peak times and taxpayers continue to prop up an industry whose importance to the country is disproportionally small relative to the level of resources it receives. Adopting more efficient methods of transport could offer considerable benefits to passengers and the taxpayer alike. But only when the sector is liberalised from rigid state control, will we see such alternatives being seriously considered.”
The report, Paving over the tracks: a better use of Britain’s railways?, by Paul Withrington and Richard Wellings outlines how commuters could pay over 40 per cent less for their journeys and more passengers could enjoy the luxury of a seat if the industry was sufficiently liberalised to allow some commuter railways in London to be converted into busways.
The success of the bus rapid transit schemes in Latin America and Asia illustrates that viable high-capacity transport alternatives exist and at a fraction of the cost of railways, subways or trams.
Current government spending on the rail network costs the taxpayer US$9 billion a year and benefits rail companies at the expense of passengers, who often receive poor value for money. Heavy subsidies, rigid state control and powerful interest groups have distorted the industry, resulting in alternative modes of transport being ignored despite their often huge potential for improved capacity and cost reduction.
The transport sector currently lags behind other industries, which have been improved through the exploitation of more efficient technologies. If politicians are serious about increasing capacity on commuter routes and reducing fares, they should embrace innovative and low cost alternatives, with the aim of relinquishing control over the sector altogether. Moving towards a more flexible, market-led approach would also enable the phasing out of government support, making the taxpayer vastly better off.
The report claims that converting railways to busways is a viable alternative, saying it would increase capacity, improve journey times and reduce both fares and operating and infrastructure costs.
The authors say that transport spending has been misallocated on a grand scale: The support received by the rail industry is disproportional to its importance to travellers. Individuals in the UK are far more likely to travel by car than train, with 90 per cent of passengers and 70 per cent of freight traffic carried by roads. Despite this disparity, state funding of railways is just 30 per cent lower than that spent on roads.
Approximately 40 per cent of spending on the heavy rail network is government funded. This generous subsidisation of the rail industry has fuelled special interest groups and hampered efforts to embrace innovative alternatives in public transport. The result has been policy decisions that have reflected political priorities rather than economic logic, causing viable alternatives to rail transport to be disregarded or ignored.
Commenting on the research, co-author and head of Transport at the Institute of Economic Affairs, Dr Richard Wellings, said: “Ongoing interference by politicians in the rail industry has led to everyone getting a raw deal. Passengers face increasingly expensive fares only to fight their way onto trains during peak times and taxpayers continue to prop up an industry whose importance to the country is disproportionally small relative to the level of resources it receives. Adopting more efficient methods of transport could offer considerable benefits to passengers and the taxpayer alike. But only when the sector is liberalised from rigid state control, will we see such alternatives being seriously considered.”
