Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tc7038$ghh0$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:35:19 on Sun, 31 Jul
> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>> On 31/07/2022 17:48, muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 09:35:58 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tc5ao4$s18$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:24:52 on Sun, 31 Jul
>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> Really? So they don't require any maintenance of the surface, drainage,
>>>>> traffic lights, street lights, signage, miscellanious road
>>>>> furniture? It all
>>>>> just lasts forever?
>>>>
>>>> That's maintenance, and like railways, does happen. I was talking about
>>>> *operating* costs for each individual passenger mile.
>>> There is no operating cost for the track other than maintenance and
>>> signalling (which is getting more automated each year). Operating costs for
>>> vehicles are born by the vehicle operator on both road and rail.
>>>
>>>>>> Roads also have a public utility for things like ambulances and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lorries, neither of which applies to the railways.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant. Railways were a public utility to many communities. That didn't
>>>>> stop Beeching.
>>>>
>>>> Many of the lines which didn't get closed, and now cost a fortune to
>>>> operate, survived because they did provide an important and less easily
>>>> substituted (for example by a new bus service) utility.
>>> And many didn't but there was little logic anyway. Haddenham kept
>>> its
>>> line but the much bigger Thame down the road lost it.
>>
>> The line through Haddenham stayed open, and the line through Thame
>> didn't, for good reasons that had little to do with either place.
>>
>> Keeping a station open when trains are passing anyway has a much lower
>> cost than keeping a line open specially for that station, and hence
>> requires a much lower benefit for the BCR to be adequate.
>
> But they still closed Haddenham Station (and the other four stations
> between Princes Risborough and Bicester. Closer to London they also
> closed West Wycombe on that line (in 1958, so predates Beeching).
>
>>>> Most of the lines were built to carry freight, and one that had been
>>>> transferred to road by societal changes after WW2, there simply wasn't
>>>> sufficient demand from the public for passenger travel.
>
>>> Plenty of roads in the UK barely see a few dozen vehicles a day.
>>> Perhaps they should be closed and left to rot?
>
> Some are. There's what today we might call today a "Green Lane" on the
> ourskirts of Manchester, that I used to drive every day (a significant
> shortcut from where I was living to where I worked). Today it has
> concrete blocks across the entrance from the main road, I lived at the
> other end.
>
> And near where I live in Cambs there's a road which was one of the more
> prominent thoroughfares in former times, but now has a gate across one
> end. I keep meaning to investigate what caused it to no longer be a
> highway at that end (I assume the gate is legal). The other 95% of it is
> still marked on the County definitive map as a highway, and even the
> Streetcar has driven the first half, although to a townie it probably
> looks like a dirt track through the middle of a field.

Some of those closures are due to antisocial behaviour.
Green lanes tended to be roads mainly used for agricultural access but of
little use as a link between settlements so got left out of the programmes
of road improvements that saw most roads get a hard surface suitable for
motor vehicles that took place from the 1900’s to the end of the 1950’s.
Then green laning became a hobby for owners of suitable vehicles which was
fine when there were not too many of them,unfortunately as word spread
along with the availability of cheaper 4x4’s,trail bikes and quad bikes a
less responsible element joined in and cause too much damage to the lanes.
Hence many have lost their status as a public road and been closed off, the
local agricultural users having a key to the barriers. Most retain footpath
and bridleway rights.
Another anti social behaviour that gets them blocked is they are are ripe
locations for fly tipping,
blocking them to vehicles doesn’t stop it but a pile dumped near the ends
is easier to clear than one half a mile down a rutted track.

GH

On 2022-07-31 05:03:47 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <tc3fba$gou$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:31:06 on Sat, 30 Jul
> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2022 11:47:40 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <1c48ehpaubaishu388pjl59ioe8lvl8hip@4ax.com>, at 18:38:56 on
>>> Fri, 29 Jul 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>> remarked:
>>>> That was much more expensive than the Aust Ferry, which was 11s 6d in 1966
>>>> (65p in decimal)[2]. So, without knowing the operating costs, my guess is
>>>> that the rail shuttle was priced to cover costs, which is why it was
>>>> relatively unpopular compared to the ferry.
>>>
>>> The complaint in BR days was the they had no idea what anything cost,
>>> hence bleeding to death on the lines that Beeching identified.
>>>
>>> Of course, there's an argument that many of those "Beeching lines" (not
>>> all of which closed) were performing a social good, but there's no doubt
>>> they were making huge operating losses.
>>
>> Though as is always pointed out but politicians never listen, very few roads
>> make any money at all , never mind a profit. Dartford crossing and M6 Toll
>> perhaps. Yet they never suggest closing roads because they cost money to
>> maintain.
>
> Apples and Oranges. Roads cost nothing to operate

National Highways (the English successor to the Highways Agency) feels
the need to employ 4700 people and has a budget of over £2 bn. That's
not something I woud describe as "next to nothing".

Robin

In message <tc86ou$r15n$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:35:26 on Mon, 1 Aug
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-07-31 05:03:47 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <tc3fba$gou$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:31:06 on Sat, 30 Jul
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2022 11:47:40 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <1c48ehpaubaishu388pjl59ioe8lvl8hip@4ax.com>, at 18:38:56 on
>>>> Fri, 29 Jul 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>> That was much more expensive than the Aust Ferry, which was 11s 6d in 1966
>>>>> (65p in decimal)[2]. So, without knowing the operating costs, my guess is
>>>>> that the rail shuttle was priced to cover costs, which is why it was
>>>>> relatively unpopular compared to the ferry.
>>>> The complaint in BR days was the they had no idea what anything
>>>>cost,
>>>> hence bleeding to death on the lines that Beeching identified.
>>>> Of course, there's an argument that many of those "Beeching lines"
>>>>(not
>>>> all of which closed) were performing a social good, but there's no doubt
>>>> they were making huge operating losses.
>>> Though as is always pointed out but politicians never listen, very
>>>few roads
>>> make any money at all , never mind a profit. Dartford crossing and M6 Toll
>>> perhaps. Yet they never suggest closing roads because they cost money to
>>> maintain.

>> Apples and Oranges. Roads cost nothing to operate
>
>National Highways (the English successor to the Highways Agency) feels
>the need to employ 4700 people and has a budget of over £2 bn. That's
>not something I woud describe as "next to nothing".

How much of that is operational costs, rather than planning new
investment etc etc.

Meanwhile, road traffic (ignoring the Covid blip) runs at approximately
400 billion vehicles miles a year, and 0.5p/mile is indeed "next to
nothing".

Why is it people have such difficulty understanding big numbers?
--
Roland Perry

On 01/08/2022 09:35, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 01/08/2022 09:10, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tc6crp$emed$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:05 on Sun, 31 Jul
>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:38:18 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>> The decimal pound meant that the smallest price increment was
>>>>>> 1/100 of a
>>>>>> pound instead of 1/240 - setting off inflation.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1/200th of a pound - the decimal halfpenny was introduced at
>>>>> decimalisation and not withdrawn until the 1980s. Though the smallest
>>>>> unit until 1969 was 1/480th - the pre-decimal halfpenny - and the
>>>>> farthing (1/960th) was only withdrawn in 1961.
>>>>
>>>> That late?  I was aware of money by 1961 and I never saw a farthing in
>>>> circulation.  My grandmother had one, along with a silver 3d bit,
>>>> which she
>>>> would bring out and show the grandchildren.
>>>
>>> It was compulsory to put a silver 3d bit in the Xmas pudding.
>>
>> And to make a wish if you found it.  My brother and I also got to pull
>> the
>> wishbone when we had chicken.
>>
>
> Which you had to pull with your little fingers.
>
>

Memories .. memories!

--
Colin

On 01/08/2022 00:27, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> What gave the farthing importance in World War II?

People buying smaller quantities of groceries because of rationing?

In message <tc8v38$116qb$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:32 on Mon, 1 Aug
2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 01/08/2022 00:27, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>> What gave the farthing importance in World War II?
>
>People buying smaller quantities of groceries because of rationing?

More likely buying rationed groceries where it was illegal to round up
the amount supplied to the nearest penny (or even half-penny). And you
wouldn't want to be forced to round-down your purchase either.
--
Roland Perry

On 01/08/2022 17:30, MB wrote:
> On 01/08/2022 00:27, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> What gave the farthing importance in World War II?
>
> People buying smaller quantities of groceries because of rationing?
>

'Thought that might be the reason.

On 01/08/2022 18:05, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 01/08/2022 17:30, MB wrote:
>> On 01/08/2022 00:27, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> What gave the farthing importance in World War II?
>>
>> People buying smaller quantities of groceries because of rationing?
>>
>
> 'Thought that might be the reason.
>

I thought perhaps also a shortage of metals would have prompted the
production of farthings in alternatives, and that there would
potentially be more of them in general circulation.

On 01/08/2022 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tc8v38$116qb$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:32 on Mon, 1 Aug
> 2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>> On 01/08/2022 00:27, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>>> What gave the farthing importance in World War II?
>>
>> People buying smaller quantities of groceries because of rationing?
>
> More likely buying rationed groceries where it was illegal to round up
> the amount supplied to the nearest penny (or even half-penny). And you
> wouldn't want to be forced to round-down your purchase either.

Those were the days of retail price maintenance and shopkeepers didn't
have the option of individually adjusting prices.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 01/08/2022 09:10, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tc6crp$emed$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:05 on Sun, 31 Jul
>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:38:18 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>>> The decimal pound meant that the smallest price increment was 1/100 of a
>>>>>> pound instead of 1/240 - setting off inflation.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1/200th of a pound - the decimal halfpenny was introduced at
>>>>> decimalisation and not withdrawn until the 1980s. Though the smallest
>>>>> unit until 1969 was 1/480th - the pre-decimal halfpenny - and the
>>>>> farthing (1/960th) was only withdrawn in 1961.
>>>>
>>>> That late? I was aware of money by 1961 and I never saw a farthing in
>>>> circulation. My grandmother had one, along with a silver 3d bit, which she
>>>> would bring out and show the grandchildren.
>>>
>>> It was compulsory to put a silver 3d bit in the Xmas pudding.
>>
>> And to make a wish if you found it. My brother and I also got to pull the
>> wishbone when we had chicken.
>>
>
> Which you had to pull with your little fingers.

Definitely!

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 01/08/2022 18:34, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 01/08/2022 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tc8v38$116qb$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:32 on Mon, 1 Aug
>> 2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>> On 01/08/2022 00:27, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>> What gave the farthing importance in World War II?
>>>
>>> People buying smaller quantities of groceries because of rationing?
>>
>> More likely buying rationed groceries where it was illegal to round up
>> the amount supplied to the nearest penny (or even half-penny). And you
>> wouldn't want to be forced to round-down your purchase either.
>
> Those were the days of retail price maintenance and shopkeepers didn't
> have the option of individually adjusting prices.
>
Command economy?

On 01/08/2022 18:38, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 01/08/2022 18:34, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 01/08/2022 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tc8v38$116qb$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:32 on Mon, 1 Aug
>>> 2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>> On 01/08/2022 00:27, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What gave the farthing importance in World War II?
>>>>
>>>> People buying smaller quantities of groceries because of rationing?
>>>
>>> More likely buying rationed groceries where it was illegal to round
>>> up the amount supplied to the nearest penny (or even half-penny). And
>>> you wouldn't want to be forced to round-down your purchase either.
>>
>> Those were the days of retail price maintenance and shopkeepers didn't
>> have the option of individually adjusting prices.
>>
> Command economy?
>

Partly, yes.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 11:16:55 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <tc86ou$r15n$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:35:26 on Mon, 1 Aug
>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>On 2022-07-31 05:03:47 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>National Highways (the English successor to the Highways Agency) feels
>>the need to employ 4700 people and has a budget of over �2 bn. That's
>>not something I woud describe as "next to nothing".
>
>How much of that is operational costs, rather than planning new
>investment etc etc.

I'm sure all those roadworks cost buttons, right?

>Meanwhile, road traffic (ignoring the Covid blip) runs at approximately
>400 billion vehicles miles a year, and 0.5p/mile is indeed "next to
>nothing".
>
>Why is it people have such difficulty understanding big numbers?

Roads require maintenance, railways require maintenance. Why do you
have a problem with this concept?

In message <tc92qi$125sj$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:34:10 on Mon, 1 Aug
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 01/08/2022 17:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tc8v38$116qb$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:32 on Mon, 1 Aug
>>2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>> On 01/08/2022 00:27, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>> What gave the farthing importance in World War II?
>>>
>>> People buying smaller quantities of groceries because of rationing?

>> More likely buying rationed groceries where it was illegal to round
>>up the amount supplied to the nearest penny (or even half-penny). And
>>you wouldn't want to be forced to round-down your purchase either.
>
>Those were the days of retail price maintenance and shopkeepers didn't
>have the option of individually adjusting prices.

I'm not sure retail price maintenance has anything to do with a ration
of 2oz of butter costing 3.75d and the shopkeeper being forbidden to
round it up to 2.1oz for 4d, or the customer being willing to walk away
with only 1.9oz for 3.5d
--
Roland Perry

In message <tc97bt$fhf$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 18:51:41 on Mon, 1 Aug
2022, muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 11:16:55 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <tc86ou$r15n$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:35:26 on Mon, 1 Aug
>>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>On 2022-07-31 05:03:47 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>National Highways (the English successor to the Highways Agency) feels
>>>the need to employ 4700 people and has a budget of over £2 bn. That's
>>>not something I woud describe as "next to nothing".
>>
>>How much of that is operational costs, rather than planning new
>>investment etc etc.
>
>I'm sure all those roadworks cost buttons, right?
>
>>Meanwhile, road traffic (ignoring the Covid blip) runs at approximately
>>400 billion vehicles miles a year, and 0.5p/mile is indeed "next to
>>nothing".
>>
>>Why is it people have such difficulty understanding big numbers?
>
>Roads require maintenance, railways require maintenance. Why do you
>have a problem with this concept?

You are the one having difficulty: roads costing 0.5p per passenger
mile, and railways costing more like 17p just in providing and
maintaining the tracks. [That's 7 billion pounds spread across 40bn
passenger-miles).
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 11:48:17 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <tc97bt$fhf$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 18:51:41 on Mon, 1 Aug
>2022, muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 11:16:55 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <tc86ou$r15n$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:35:26 on Mon, 1 Aug
>>>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>On 2022-07-31 05:03:47 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>National Highways (the English successor to the Highways Agency) feels
>>>>the need to employ 4700 people and has a budget of over �2 bn. That's
>>>>not something I woud describe as "next to nothing".
>>>
>>>How much of that is operational costs, rather than planning new
>>>investment etc etc.
>>
>>I'm sure all those roadworks cost buttons, right?
>>
>>>Meanwhile, road traffic (ignoring the Covid blip) runs at approximately
>>>400 billion vehicles miles a year, and 0.5p/mile is indeed "next to
>>>nothing".
>>>
>>>Why is it people have such difficulty understanding big numbers?
>>
>>Roads require maintenance, railways require maintenance. Why do you
>>have a problem with this concept?
>
>You are the one having difficulty: roads costing 0.5p per passenger
>mile, and railways costing more like 17p just in providing and
>maintaining the tracks. [That's 7 billion pounds spread across 40bn
>passenger-miles).

Last time I looked people didn't have railway tracks up to their front
door nor have I seen 8, 8 or 10 tracks running side by side for miles. The
reason the cost per mile is cheap is because there are so many more miles
of roads because governments were quite happy throwing money at them without
expecting a direct return on investments as quite rightly they're seen as
a fundamental building block of a nation. This never seems to apply to
railways even when in the case of london they carry more commuters to the
city centre than all road vehicles combined.

On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 18:22:33 -0000 (UTC), muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 11:48:17 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <tc97bt$fhf$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 18:51:41 on Mon, 1 Aug
>>2022, muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 11:16:55 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <tc86ou$r15n$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:35:26 on Mon, 1 Aug
>>>>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>On 2022-07-31 05:03:47 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>National Highways (the English successor to the Highways Agency) feels
>>>>>the need to employ 4700 people and has a budget of over £2 bn. That's
>>>>>not something I woud describe as "next to nothing".
>>>>
>>>>How much of that is operational costs, rather than planning new
>>>>investment etc etc.
>>>
>>>I'm sure all those roadworks cost buttons, right?
>>>
>>>>Meanwhile, road traffic (ignoring the Covid blip) runs at approximately
>>>>400 billion vehicles miles a year, and 0.5p/mile is indeed "next to
>>>>nothing".
>>>>
>>>>Why is it people have such difficulty understanding big numbers?
>>>
>>>Roads require maintenance, railways require maintenance. Why do you
>>>have a problem with this concept?
>>
>>You are the one having difficulty: roads costing 0.5p per passenger
>>mile, and railways costing more like 17p just in providing and
>>maintaining the tracks. [That's 7 billion pounds spread across 40bn
>>passenger-miles).
>
>Last time I looked people didn't have railway tracks up to their front
>door nor have I seen 8, 8 or 10 tracks running side by side for miles. The
>reason the cost per mile is cheap is because there are so many more miles
>of roads because governments were quite happy throwing money at them without
>expecting a direct return
>
Most were in place long before government was involved in building and
maintaining them.

>on investments as quite rightly they're seen as
>a fundamental building block of a nation. This never seems to apply to
>railways even when in the case of london they carry more commuters to the
>city centre than all road vehicles combined.

On 2022-08-02 21:00:59 +0000, Charles Ellson said:

> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 18:22:33 -0000 (UTC), muttley@dastardlyhq.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 11:48:17 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tc97bt$fhf$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 18:51:41 on Mon, 1 Aug
>>> 2022, muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 11:16:55 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tc86ou$r15n$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:35:26 on Mon, 1 Aug
>>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 2022-07-31 05:03:47 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>> National Highways (the English successor to the Highways Agency) feels
>>>>>> the need to employ 4700 people and has a budget of over £2 bn. That's
>>>>>> not something I woud describe as "next to nothing".
>>>>>
>>>>> How much of that is operational costs, rather than planning new
>>>>> investment etc etc.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure all those roadworks cost buttons, right?
>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, road traffic (ignoring the Covid blip) runs at approximately
>>>>> 400 billion vehicles miles a year, and 0.5p/mile is indeed "next to
>>>>> nothing".
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is it people have such difficulty understanding big numbers?
>>>>
>>>> Roads require maintenance, railways require maintenance. Why do you
>>>> have a problem with this concept?
>>>
>>> You are the one having difficulty: roads costing 0.5p per passenger
>>> mile, and railways costing more like 17p just in providing and
>>> maintaining the tracks. [That's 7 billion pounds spread across 40bn
>>> passenger-miles).
>>
>> Last time I looked people didn't have railway tracks up to their front
>> door nor have I seen 8, 8 or 10 tracks running side by side for miles. The
>> reason the cost per mile is cheap is because there are so many more miles
>> of roads because governments were quite happy throwing money at them without
>> expecting a direct return
>>
> Most were in place long before government was involved in building and
> maintaining them.

The routes may have existed as paths to walk along and something a
horse might be able to pull a cart on, roads as they existed before the
government stepped in were largely impassible to a motor vehicle short
of something like a tractor or land rover. When the government stepped
in, it did so with no regard for things like cost-benefit analysis or
considerations of reate of return on investment. It was simply a case
of "big governemnt" coming up with a big-state solution to provide
roads for all, and throwing money at it.

Robin

In message <tcbq19$1fh4$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 18:22:33 on Tue, 2 Aug
2022, muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 11:48:17 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <tc97bt$fhf$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 18:51:41 on Mon, 1 Aug
>>2022, muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 11:16:55 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <tc86ou$r15n$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:35:26 on Mon, 1 Aug
>>>>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>On 2022-07-31 05:03:47 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>National Highways (the English successor to the Highways Agency) feels
>>>>>the need to employ 4700 people and has a budget of over £2 bn. That's
>>>>>not something I woud describe as "next to nothing".
>>>>
>>>>How much of that is operational costs, rather than planning new
>>>>investment etc etc.
>>>
>>>I'm sure all those roadworks cost buttons, right?
>>>
>>>>Meanwhile, road traffic (ignoring the Covid blip) runs at approximately
>>>>400 billion vehicles miles a year, and 0.5p/mile is indeed "next to
>>>>nothing".
>>>>
>>>>Why is it people have such difficulty understanding big numbers?
>>>
>>>Roads require maintenance, railways require maintenance. Why do you
>>>have a problem with this concept?
>>
>>You are the one having difficulty: roads costing 0.5p per passenger
>>mile, and railways costing more like 17p just in providing and
>>maintaining the tracks. [That's 7 billion pounds spread across 40bn
>>passenger-miles).
>
>Last time I looked people didn't have railway tracks up to their front
>door nor have I seen 8, 8 or 10 tracks running side by side for miles.

Never traveled from Clapham Junction to Waterloo? [To save you wasting
electrons looking it up, there's eight tracks]

>The reason the cost per mile is cheap is because there are so many more
>miles of roads because governments were quite happy throwing money at
>them without expecting a direct return on investments as quite rightly
>they're seen as a fundamental building block of a nation.

That makes no sense at all. The reason roads are cheaper per passenger
mile is because it doesn't cost a fortune keeping them fettled on a day
today basis.

--
Roland Perry

In message <tcdgeq$25aq9$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:51:22 on Wed, 3 Aug
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-08-02 21:00:59 +0000, Charles Ellson said:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 18:22:33 -0000 (UTC), muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 11:48:17 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tc97bt$fhf$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 18:51:41 on Mon, 1 Aug
>>>> 2022, muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 11:16:55 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tc86ou$r15n$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:35:26 on Mon, 1 Aug
>>>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 2022-07-31 05:03:47 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>> National Highways (the English successor to the Highways Agency) feels
>>>>>>> the need to employ 4700 people and has a budget of over £2 bn. That's
>>>>>>> not something I woud describe as "next to nothing".
>>>>>> How much of that is operational costs, rather than planning new
>>>>>> investment etc etc.
>>>>> I'm sure all those roadworks cost buttons, right?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, road traffic (ignoring the Covid blip) runs at
>>>>>>approximately
>>>>>> 400 billion vehicles miles a year, and 0.5p/mile is indeed "next to
>>>>>> nothing".
>>>>>> Why is it people have such difficulty understanding big numbers?
>>>>> Roads require maintenance, railways require maintenance. Why do
>>>>>
>>>>> have a problem with this concept?
>>>> You are the one having difficulty: roads costing 0.5p per
>>>>passenger
>>>> mile, and railways costing more like 17p just in providing and
>>>> maintaining the tracks. [That's 7 billion pounds spread across 40bn
>>>> passenger-miles).
>>> Last time I looked people didn't have railway tracks up to their
>>>front
>>> door nor have I seen 8, 8 or 10 tracks running side by side for miles. The
>>> reason the cost per mile is cheap is because there are so many more miles
>>> of roads because governments were quite happy throwing money at them without
>>> expecting a direct return
>>>
>> Most were in place long before government was involved in building
>>and
>> maintaining them.
>
>The routes may have existed as paths to walk along and something a
>horse might be able to pull a cart on, roads as they existed before the
>government stepped in were largely impassible to a motor vehicle short
>of something like a tractor or land rover. When the government stepped
>in, it did so with no regard for things like cost-benefit analysis or
>considerations of reate of return on investment. It was simply a case
>of "big governemnt" coming up with a big-state solution to provide
>roads for all, and throwing money at it.

But throwing an order of magnitude less money per passenger mile than
they've been throwing at the railways since WW2.
--
Roland Perry

On 03/08/2022 10:51, Bob wrote:
> The routes may have existed as paths to walk along and something a
> horse might be able to pull a cart on, roads as they existed before the
> government stepped in were largely impassible to a motor vehicle short
> of something like a tractor or land rover. When the government stepped
> in, it did so with no regard for things like cost-benefit analysis or
> considerations of reate of return on investment. It was simply a case
> of "big governemnt" coming up with a big-state solution to provide
> roads for all, and throwing money at it.

I think the only time the 'government' stepped in was the 'Royal Roads'
which the main single digit 'A Roads' are based on.

The later development of roads was Turnpikes which were local councils
(in various forms) operating turnpikes or licensing turnpikes.

On 2022-08-03 11:16:52 +0000, MB said:

> On 03/08/2022 10:51, Bob wrote:
>> The routes may have existed as paths to walk along and something a
>> horse might be able to pull a cart on, roads as they existed before the
>> government stepped in were largely impassible to a motor vehicle short
>> of something like a tractor or land rover. When the government stepped
>> in, it did so with no regard for things like cost-benefit analysis or
>> considerations of reate of return on investment. It was simply a case
>> of "big governemnt" coming up with a big-state solution to provide
>> roads for all, and throwing money at it.
>
> I think the only time the 'government' stepped in was the 'Royal Roads'
> which the main single digit 'A Roads' are based on.
>
> The later development of roads was Turnpikes which were local councils
> (in various forms) operating turnpikes or licensing turnpikes.

The Trunk Roads acts of 1936 and 1946 gave the central government
ownership and control of the trunk road network (and newer roads
including motorways were added to its inventory).

Robin

Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>
>> Most were in place long before government was involved in building and
>> maintaining them.
>
> The routes may have existed as paths to walk along and something a
> horse might be able to pull a cart on, roads as they existed before the
> government stepped in were largely impassible to a motor vehicle short
> of something like a tractor or land rover. When the government stepped
> in, it did so with no regard for things like cost-benefit analysis or
> considerations of reate of return on investment. It was simply a case
> of "big governemnt" coming up with a big-state solution to provide
> roads for all, and throwing money at it.
>
> Robin
>
Turnpikes were usually maintained to a higher standard than Parish
maintained local tracks though how well often depended on how good the
management was and being private operations how much money was put back in
to maintain them.
Under the period of the trusts such roads were gradually improved by new
techniques by engineers such such as Telford and McAdam.

Ironically it was loss of revenue caused by the coming of the railways
that saw the turnpike roads the improvements halt and then deteriorate
badly that saw them taken into public ownership and responsibility coming
under Counties.

The history of the Turnpike trusts isn’t that different from the Rail
privatisation of recent times,
worked fine for a few years but as the revenue no longer covered the
running costs the state has had to step in again to keep things moving.

GH

Am 01.08.2022 um 09:56 schrieb muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 06:51:18 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tc6brk$1r4u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:49:56 on Sun, 31 Jul
>> 2022, muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> Is your solution to make all roads toll-roads? After all, railways are
>>>> overwhelmingly toll-railways, with almost everyone paying a fare.
>>>
>>> The "fare" for the roads is road tax
>>
>> I think you mean VED, but that's an annual subscription, not a
>> pay-per-trip.
>
> Its a tax whatever you want to call it.

IMHO, money collected by the government is only called 'TAX' if the
government has no legal obligation how to spend this money.

Money legally earmarked for a specific purpose is not a tax even if it
is collected b the government.

National Insurance according to this definition is not a tax but a
government-organized insurance.
Is VED specifically earmarked to a specific purpose?

Rolf

On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 13:43:16 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 01.08.2022 um 09:56 schrieb muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 06:51:18 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tc6brk$1r4u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:49:56 on Sun, 31 Jul
>>> 2022, muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> Is your solution to make all roads toll-roads? After all, railways are
>>>>> overwhelmingly toll-railways, with almost everyone paying a fare.
>>>>
>>>> The "fare" for the roads is road tax
>>>
>>> I think you mean VED, but that's an annual subscription, not a
>>> pay-per-trip.
>>
>> Its a tax whatever you want to call it.
>
>IMHO, money collected by the government is only called 'TAX' if the
>government has no legal obligation how to spend this money.
>
>Money legally earmarked for a specific purpose is not a tax even if it
>is collected b the government.
>
>National Insurance according to this definition is not a tax but a
>government-organized insurance.
>Is VED specifically earmarked to a specific purpose?

No, and neither is NI. The Treasury hates earmarked taxes.