[WellSpyder]

Maybe the UK's transport infrastructure is a bit far removed from the US budget battles, so I've started a new thread in which to respond to Phil:

phil_20686, on 2011-August-17, 10:25, said:

COngestion is not necessarily a problem of infrastructure. The railways are terrible, but the roads are in a much better state than a decade ago prior to labour going on a drive about road maintenence. Particularly in Scotland. Even the railways are in a better state than they were at the end of British Rail. Even though their privatisation was an abject fail.

Good to hear the roads have improved in Scotland. I'm not sure this is a universal experience across the country, though - all over the country councils are worrying about increasing backlogs of repairs.

I would also argue that while congestion may not in itself be a problem of infrastructure, it does highlight that there may be benefits in increasing the capacity of that infrastructure.

phil_20686, on 2011-August-17, 10:25, said:

Incidentally, I think that the number one indicator of a poor transport infrastructure is inequality of house prices. The better the transport infrastructure, the easier it is to live "close" to your work, and the smaller the premium on living close to the city centers. A thought experiment involving a star trek type transporter should convince you that transport is the prime driver of the location bonus. Thus, IMO, good government policy would be to build the first high speed rail link from london to, say, Newcastle, with the aim of trying to bring poorer/cheaper areas into the london orbit, and hence persuading industry and people to move to the north.

Interesting idea, and I agree that the transport infrastructure will affect house price inequality. But there are lots of other reasons for preferring to live in one place than another besides relative costs of housing and ease of commuting. And of course even if a star trek transporter enabled me to live wherever I wanted to and still get to work in virtually no time, it still wouldn't necessarily allow me to do so at no cost - indeed, I can imagine the owner of the facility charging quite a lot for the transport service he was offering! It will be interesting to see whether house price differentials increase as a result of on-going hikes in rail fares in the UK.

[helene_t]

I think housing market considerations are relevant. Improved infrastructure is like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in. Reduce the traffic jam and people respond by driving more (for example by moving further away from home) until we have the same amount of jam as before.

[phil_20686]

helene_t, on 2011-August-17, 11:55, said:

I think housing market considerations are relevant. Improved infrastructure is like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in. Reduce the traffic jam and people respond by driving more (for example by moving further away from home) until we have the same amount of jam as before.

Isnt this the point? Thats why you should build roads from desirable places to the middle of nowhere. The same for trainlinks, you want people to relieve the pressure from the centre. Everyone moving to london might be the best choice individually but it cannot be at a system wide viewpoint. Better transport infrastructure would lead to a more balanced distribution of population, which would be to everyone's benefits.

Whenever I hear "people move to london because thats where the jobs are" I interpret it to mean that transport infrastructure is so poor that buisnesses in manchester and newcastle are cut off from clients in london, so they must move closer despite the cost premium.

Obviously, this is not ideal. Thats why I think building the high speed rail link between london and birmingham is a mistake. We should be building it to the places where there are few jobs. As pointed out the link will bring its own traffic, and that will regenerate these areas. Instead improving transport in teh SE relative to the North will only further unbalance the economic prospects, and will lead to more people moving into a london that is already overcrowded.

[helene_t]

I think I largely agree, Phil. Btw did you read my "relevant" as if I wrote "irrelevant"?

There is a problem with making infrastructure investments based on the broader common good as opposed to the profit of the railways, though. Those experts who will be advising the government about the utility of alternative investments could have all kind of biases. In particular, they might be in favor of larger over-all investments since that would make themselves more relevant.