Timmy elsewhereAugust 21, 2014 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere11 CommentsAt the ASI. Why should taxpayers subsidise train fares so that the middle classes can live in the green belt? previousHmm, not sure about thisnextRitchie and macroeconomics 11 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere” alastair harris August 21, 2014 at 11:48 am they shouldn’t, but then why should commuters into London from green belt middle class land subsidise rural off peak services or government vanity projects which very few use. Luke August 21, 2014 at 11:56 am Alternatively, the commuters and others living in the green belt should subsidise those who are forced to live beyond the green belt. TheJollyGreenMan August 21, 2014 at 12:11 pm Luke, Shouldn’t that be: inside the limits of the green belt? I thought that only elves and fairies actually lived in the green belt; and the odd illegal immigrant. TheJollyGreenMan August 21, 2014 at 12:14 pm These pro-train peeps keep forgetting the off-hours when tonnes and tonnes of train move a few people around, the most ineffective way of moving people around ever! Andrew M August 21, 2014 at 12:17 pm It’s the long-distance and rural routes which are heavily subsidised. Commuter routes (including the Undergound) are barely subsidised at all. Ian Bennett August 21, 2014 at 1:01 pm Here’s a bizarre and radical notion; why not have trains (and buses and healthcare and schools and theatres) paid for by people who use them? magnusw August 21, 2014 at 2:03 pm Why should people who are so poor that their only choice is to walk to work have to stand for 90seconds at a pedestrian crossing trying to get over the road so fewer people’s cars are impeded? Why should they suffer the danger imposed by those cars? Why should taxpayers subsidise drivers who choke up the cities, ruin our enjoyment of areas, pollute the atmosphere with fumes and noise and kill thousands? Luke August 21, 2014 at 4:00 pm “I thought that only elves and fairies actually lived in the green belt; and the odd illegal immigrant.” I have no idea, I’m afraid. I stay safely in zones 1 and 2. I’d guess it’s mainly elves, Countryside Alliance and extras from Deliverance. bloke (not) in spain August 21, 2014 at 6:21 pm “Why should taxpayers subsidise drivers who choke up the cities, ruin our enjoyment of areas, pollute the atmosphere with fumes and noise and kill thousands?” Er…the difference between the tax take on motoring & the spend on roads is a subsidy? Novel. Runcie Balspune August 21, 2014 at 6:26 pm The real subsidy is paid towards the £50k+/year earned by train drivers, the glorious rent-seekers backed by their Lords in ASLEF and RMT, who fund her Majesty’s Opposition. The DLR has managed to operate a driverless service for a long while without serious incident, and some of the tube also run semi-automatic trains. Also “Travelling by train produces benefits for everyone – less air pollution, lower greenhouse gas emissions, fewer traffic jams.” This is only true for single-passenger cars and doesn’t account for electric vehicles. Tarmac over the rails and replace trains with hybrid/electric coaches and lorries and you’d get a much better result (and even less jams because they’d all be off the normal roads). magnusw August 21, 2014 at 11:42 pm b(n)is – if simple provision of road was the only costs of motoring you may have a point, externalities my dear fellow. Furthermore, revenues are not ring fenced. Finally, just as not all rail commuters are equal, neither are all miles driven. When considering the major externalities of driving in London, land use, pollution, congestion, it is clear that a London driver, paying the same amount of VED and fuel duty contributes much less towards their externalities while drivers out in the countryside probably contribute too much. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.