NEW: we need to talk about the dire state of British transport infrastructure.
Of the 52 UK cities with 250k+ people, only 8 (15%) have a tram or metro.
In France & Germany it’s 80%, Poland is on 60%.
Even *American* cities are better served, and the US hates public transit!
It gets worse.
US cities are poorly served by public transit, too car centric, but at least you CAN drive to/around them.
Euro cities (+ London) are the inverse: a pain to drive in, but great public transport.
Other UK cities are screwed: 💩 public transport AND bad road infra
European cities (+ London) have their successful transport model.
Even as someone who thinks the US is insanely car-centric and this has huge negative externalities, the US transport model does also do its job.
Most British cities outside of London are being failed by contrast.
Why?
There are many reasons, including how British government has prevented any of its regions/cities (apart from London!) from running things themselves, but another is this:
It costs more to build public transport infrastructure in the UK than ~anywhere else in the world (!)
This is true from big rail projects like HS2, to trams and metro, to less glamorous (that’s right, trams are glamorous 💅) but equally vital processes like electrifying UK railway lines.
According to research from @BritainRemade, Madrid built 47 miles of new underground lines for half the cost of extending one London Tube line by 10 miles.
In France, Besançon built a tramway for £29m/mile. Manchester's Second City Crossing tram extension cost £252m/mile.
@Sam_Dumitriu has a startling and comprehensive run-down here of quite how expensive this stuff has become in Britain (and the US), and the many factors that had led to this point
One thing that has contributed is good old fashioned Nimbyism.
Objections create delays, call for expensive (and almost never useful) consultations, thousands of pages of costly environmental impact statements, and often result in re-routing roads and rail at huge cost.
And the best part?
Quite often, the very same people who devote themselves to tirelessly campaigning over noise or aesthetics, end up saying "you know what actually it was fine" 🙃
One study found that Nimbyism directly adds huge cost to transport infrastructure projects by causing routes to be made longer and fiddlier to accommodate local objections over environmental impact
This adds millions, and then people acknowledge that actually it didn’t matter 🤦♂️
Ultimately, British people and British cities outside of London are getting a rough deal, this is constraining British productivity, and it’s all due in significant part to Nimbyism and our exceptional transport infrastructure costs.
There’s a rich history of conservatives using wedge issues.
In the 2001 Aus election, Liberals exploited a migrant boat incident + 9/11, boosted the salience of immigration, took a strong position, and left the opposition bleeding votes on both flanks
Immigration shot up to be considered by far the biggest issue concerning Britons in 2015-16, the Leave campaign positioned itself as the solution, and this combo of high salience plus belief that voting Leave was the answer won the day
NEW: America is a rich country. Britain is a poor country with one wealthy region.
People love to compare the UK to Mississippi, but it’s far more informative to look at UK subnationally, too.
London ranks fairly well, the rest of the country does not 👉 https://t.co/UTjooyJ5Jcft.com/content/e5c741…
If you strip out London’s output and head count, the UK’s GDP per capita would drop by 14%.
Whereas if the whole of the bay area from the Golden Gate to Cupertino seceded tomorrow, US GDP per capita would only dip by 4%.
The US is far less reliant on any one region.
Similarly, amputating Amsterdam from the Netherlands would only shave off 5% of GDP per capita, and removing Germany’s most productive city (Munich) would only shave off 1%.
I used to eat 5,000 calories per day, every day, when training intensively, because that’s how much I was burning. Anyone who has done significant amounts of high intensity exercise knows the below is not true
It’s also settled science. The only thing that’s not settled is whether *the rate at which* more physical activity translates into more total energy expenditure varies with a) amount/intensity of exercise, and b) whether someone is restricting their energy intake at the same time
The constrained energy model (right) theorises that the body compensates for increased energy burned during exercise by spending less energy on other processes, offsetting some of the extra burn from exercise.
1) It never used to be the case, but there is now a big partisan gap for trust in science in the US. Republicans are now essentially the anti-science party, while Dems are stridently pro
2) As a result, vaccination rates were markedly lower among Republicans than Democrats during the pandemic, and a new study finds that this led to significantly higher excess death rates among Reps than Dems, amounting to tens of thousands of lives lost https://t.co/SSY7E25TlAjamanetwork.com/journals/jamai…
Here’s another view: there were immediately excess deaths among supporters of both parties when Covid took off, but rates were similar.
But after vaccines became available, a partisan mortality gap opened up and rapidly widened (this is adjusted for age)
🤔 in the richest part of the country, as people continue to grow more prosperous they are using cars less, and using public transport more https://t.co/Cq2Gjri9I8
Though one thing that the anti-car brigade does need to acknowledge is that the public transport infrastructure has to be there for people to switch to it.
Outside of London, for the most part, it is not.
Schemes that aim to reduce car use have to offer genuine alternatives.
It’s easy for Londoners to say "we don’t drive, why does everyone else?", but London has one of the best public transport networks in the world.
Most other cities & towns in the UK have little to no rapid transit, and their bus services have been hammered
The British public is much more supportive and united on Net Zero policies than the public in peer countries, with Conservative voters frequently as green as the centre-left elsewhere https://t.co/1hsyLPrlwmon.ft.com/453oWeT
And note that this support is for specific policies that would impact people’s lives — the ban on new petrol and diesel cars, a tax on frequent flyers — not just vague support for net zero as a concept.
Britons are willing to go green even for some short-term inconvenience.
Looking again, it’s striking how America’s reliance on flights for domestic travel makes that policy so unpopular there.
Conservative voters are far more welcoming of such a policy than US Democrats (and Macron voters for that matter).