胡思, Author at 胡思 WooSee

The Money Tree That Bills the Treasury

Donald Trump and Nigel Farage talk about North Sea oil as though it were a national treasure squandered by green zealotry. Open the books, and the story is rather deflating.

In 2022, the year energy prices spiked, the entire North Sea brought the Treasury barely £9 billion in tax, its recent peak, and the figure has fallen every year since. The new fields now fought over most fiercely, Rosebank, Jackdaw, Cambo and a scattering of smaller projects, would on the available estimates contribute a combined £8 billion to £12 billion across the twenty to thirty years from first production to exhaustion. Spread over each year, that is £300 million to £500 million, a rounding error beside national tax receipts that run past a trillion pounds. The money tree, it turns out, shakes out loose change.

And that is before the reliefs. The headline rate on North Sea oil and gas is 78%, which sounds punishing, until you notice the government’s other hand quietly handing money back. When a field reaches the end of its life the platforms must be dismantled and the wells plugged, and the state covers 30 to 40% of that cost through tax relief; companies may also carry losses back against past years, which amounts to refunding tax already collected. Once these are counted, the net take shrinks further. One analysis estimates that Rosebank alone, in a base case, would leave the Treasury about £258 million worse off, because the reliefs are granted up front at the high rate while the profits arrive after 2030, once the rate has fallen.

That is a projection. What these companies have actually paid is starker. A rate of 78% on paper has, in cash, often meant zero, or less. From 2018 to 2021 Shell paid no tax on its North Sea business and took refunds instead; the windfall levy briefly forced it to pay in 2022 and 2023, but by 2024 it was back to paying nothing on North Sea drilling and recovered roughly £12 million, thanks to relief on decommissioning the Brent field. Equinor, the developer behind Rosebank, paid more than 95% of its 2023 corporate income tax to Norway and barely £20 million of it to Britain. None of this is evasion; it is all lawful relief. But it makes the point plainly: hollow out the tax base, and the rate on paper is just for show.

The larger bill never enters the ledger at all. The oil is pulled up to be burned, and the carbon dioxide released is a real cost. Valued at the UK government’s own carbon price of about £273 a tonne, the lifetime emissions from these new fields come to roughly £100 billion; even on the generous assumption that the oil would simply be burned elsewhere if Britain did not produce it, halving the figure still leaves around £50 billion. Against that, the Treasury’s billion or two in receipts is, quite literally, small change.

As for the hope that more exploration will turn things around, the geology disagrees. About 93% of the North Sea’s recoverable oil and gas has already been taken out across sixty years of production, and new drilling could add little more than 1% of the lifetime total. West of Shetland, fifty years and 171 exploration wells produced just 13 fields in or near production, a success rate of around 8%. In 2024 only three exploration wells were drilled, a ten-year low. The basin is draining, and no amount of drilling refills this particular account.

Then there is the claim that more wells would lower energy bills, which mistakes a global market for a domestic tap. Once licensed, North Sea oil and gas belongs to private companies that sell it at international prices to the highest bidder, with roughly 80% of the oil exported outright; the price is set globally, and does not move because Britain pumps a few more barrels. The only channel through which extraction could touch bills is rebated tax, yet £300 million to £500 million a year, spread across some 28 million households, comes to a little over a tenner each, less than 1% of an average £1,776 bill. Even Claire Coutinho, the Conservative energy secretary, conceded in 2023 that new drilling would not bring bills down.

So the case does not rest on revenue, on bills or on energy security, each of which collapses on inspection; what its defenders fall back on, in the end, is jobs and posture. It is dressed up as a national treasure only because “small, shrinking, possibly negative, no help on bills, and carrying a large climate debt” makes no kind of slogan. On an honest balance sheet it is a thin and fragile stream of revenue, wrapped around a vast climate liability, lying in a basin that is nearly drained.

The Money Tree That Bills the Treasury Read More »

Brexit at Ten: For Whom Was It Done?

Leave a Comment / UK Affairs / 胡思

Ten years ago today, Britons walked into polling stations and, on a ballot offering exactly two options, decided the direction of a country. During the campaign a red bus toured the motorways with a promise painted along its side, that the £350 million sent to Brussels each week could go to the NHS instead. The UK Statistics Authority publicly called the claim misleading, since it was a gross figure that ignored the rebate and the money flowing back, and the true net sum was only a fraction of it. The bus kept rolling all the same, the claim kept spreading, and by 2018 four in ten people who had heard the slogan still believed it.

The trouble was never only that number. It was the ballot itself. Voters were asked a single line, remain or leave, and the answer ran to one word. Yet inside that one word sat several futures that flatly contradicted one another. Some wanted a Singapore-on-Thames, a low-tax, lightly regulated offshore financial island. Some wanted a Global Britain signing free trade deals across the world. Some were content to stay in the single market like Norway. And some wanted to sign nothing at all, a no-deal isolation that critics mocked as the North Korea option. These destinations pointed in opposite directions and could not all come true, yet a single yes-or-no question flattened them into one answer.

Before the vote, the Leave camp spoke in reassuring tones. The Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan insisted that nobody was threatening Britain’s place in the single market; Nigel Farage praised Norway for being both prosperous and self-governing. After the vote the tone hardened overnight. Farage now declared that staying in the single market would betray the 17.4 million people who had voted to leave. The same people, the same mouths, told two different stories before and after the result. A vague promise, once it has to be honoured, is honoured in its most extreme form.

The cost has been real. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, set against remaining, Brexit will lower long-run productivity by 4 per cent; a 2025 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research goes further, putting UK GDP per head 6 to 8 per cent below where it would have been by 2025. The promised global trade feast produced only a handful of new deals, and even the minister who negotiated the flagship one would not stand behind it. George Eustice, the former environment secretary, told the Commons plainly that the agreement with Australia was not a good deal, that Britain had given away far too much for far too little.

The bill did not stop at the national accounts; it seeped into ordinary days. The London School of Economics found that the border checks and sanitary rules brought by Brexit added almost £7 billion to British household food bills between late 2019 and early 2023, about £250 per household, and accounted for roughly a third of food price inflation over that period. To take a trip to the continent now, a British passport joins the long non-EU queue, and within the Schengen area you may stay no more than 90 days in any 180, with peak-season crossings running to hours. Even taking a cat or a dog along has become a chore: the old workaround of an EU pet passport was closed off in April 2026, so every trip now requires a fresh Animal Health Certificate, a vet visit and roughly £100, good for one journey only. None of these costs appeared on the ballot by itself, yet they are paid line by line.

The sharpest cost of all landed on the poorest places. The EU’s structural funds had for years been directed at the regions that had fallen behind, West Wales and the Valleys, Cornwall, the north east of England, the old industrial belts where the mines had closed and the factories had gone, and it was this money that paid for roads, training and small businesses. These were precisely the places that voted to leave most enthusiastically. The Leave camp promised that a UK Shared Prosperity Fund would replace every penny. In the event, the Welsh government calculates that of the roughly £1.4 billion in regional funding it should have received between 2021 and 2025, it came up more than £1 billion short; Cornwall, Yorkshire and the north east rank among the heaviest losers. The hand that had fed the left-behind was the one they had voted to cut, and Westminster did not make up the difference.

Forcing through the hardest version of all required the governing party to purge itself first. In 2019, 21 Conservative MPs who opposed a no-deal exit had the whip removed, several of them seasoned grandees. Two snap elections and three prime ministers all revolved around a question that had never been spelled out.

Ten years on, opinion has turned. In June 2026, 57 per cent of Britons thought leaving had been wrong and only 30 per cent still thought it right; asked to vote again, 55 per cent would rejoin, while the share wanting to stay outside has fallen to 31 per cent, against the 52 per cent who chose Leave in 2016. The shift is half regret and half arithmetic: the young oppose Brexit overwhelmingly, the old were its mainstay, and the electoral register turns over year by year. Yet whenever anyone proposes moving closer to Europe again, the same camp brands the smallest repair as a betrayal of Brexit, a surrender to Brussels. The will of the people they invoke, though, is the will of one day in 2016. That electorate is no longer this one, and a fair number of them are no longer alive.

Since the referendum, Britain has had 7 governments. Every few years we vote, without embarrassment, on who should run the country, changing the prime minister and changing the governing party, and nobody calls that a betrayal. But when it comes to the one decision that has proved a poor bargain and that opinion has since abandoned, we are told it was settled for all time and may never be revisited. If democracy lets us choose a government afresh every few years, why must Brexit alone be fixed forever? Respecting a result matters, and democracy cannot mean re-running a vote until your side wins. But democracy has never meant enshrining a single ballot from a single day as scripture beyond question. A nation that ages and renews itself owes no permanent obedience to a majority that has long since dispersed.

The referendum question was badly written from the start. It named no destination and set no checkpoint to confirm the terms, so whoever shouted the will of the people loudest took charge of the result. The Leave camp will say what was won was sovereignty, the right to govern oneself, and to many who voted that carries real weight. But the impoverished regions stripped of their subsidies, the households paying more, the travellers stuck in the queue have borne most of the cost, which prompts the only question worth asking. Remain or leave was never the hard part. Ten years on, the hard question is who all of this was actually for.

Brexit at Ten: For Whom Was It Done? Read More »

Passport-Free Travel That Can Still Break UK Immigration Law

The Same Hand Pays and Collects: Why England’s Free Bus Pass Points Towards Public Buses

Leave a Comment / UK Affairs / 胡思

An older passenger in Britain boards a bus, taps a card on the reader, and rides to their destination without paying a penny. But the bus company is not running a charity, and that fare has to be made up by someone. Follow the money backwards and it traces a quiet line from the public purse to private firms, and raises a question Britain has long avoided: if the money comes mainly from government, why are the buses still left to private hands?

Start with how the money moves. In England, when an older passenger taps their card, the bus company collects no fare, and it is the local council that makes up the difference. Central government does not set aside a dedicated payment to operators; instead it folds the money into councils’ general funding, leaving each council to allocate it and then pass it on to the bus companies. Councils pay on a single principle: that operators should end up “no better off and no worse off”. That means reimbursing the fares the company would otherwise have taken, minus the journeys that happen only because travel is free, plus the extra costs of carrying more passengers.

Fair in theory, awkward in practice. The hardest figure to pin down is exactly which journeys “happen only because travel is free”. It cannot be measured directly, only estimated from the relationship between fares and demand: how many people would simply not travel if they had to pay. A cash-strapped council has every reason to estimate that share high, and so pay less; an operator wants it low, and so collect more. With each side holding its own data and assumptions, disputes are inevitable. There is a formal route for them: an operator that thinks reimbursement is too low can appeal to the Secretary of State for Transport, where an independent decision-maker rules using standard guidance, with judicial review as a last resort. Over the years such disputes have run into the hundreds. A Commons Transport Committee has gone further, saying the “no better off, no worse off” standard is in practice impossible to test.

Look closer and this chain of reimbursement is, in essence, a pipe carrying public money to private companies. The guidance even requires the payment to include an element of “reasonable profit”, so the state pays not only the pensioner’s fare but a slice of the operator’s margin too. And this is only one stream. Add together concessionary travel, the fuel subsidy and support for loss-making routes, and close to half of the income of Britain’s bus industry comes from the public purse. A nominally private industry is, in effect, roughly half funded by the taxpayer.

Yet none of this friction is inevitable. It dates from the deregulation and privatisation of 1985, which handed routes and fares to private companies and left government to reimburse them afterwards by a formula no one can pin down. London never went down that road. Its buses have always been run under contract by Transport for London (TfL): the authority specifies the routes, fares and vehicle standards, operators are paid a fixed fee to run the services, and all the fare revenue goes to the authority. Greater Manchester’s Bee Network has recently returned to the same model. Under this arrangement, free travel for older passengers simply means the authority collects a little less, with no need to haggle over which journeys were “generated” by the concession. The friction disappears, because the hand that pays and the hand that collects are one and the same.

The structural question then becomes hard to dodge. When close to half of a private operator’s income is public money, and when government pays a profit margin while litigating year after year over a formula it cannot verify, is the “private plus subsidy” arrangement still worth keeping? Bringing buses back into public control, so that the paying hand and the collecting hand become one, is not hard to follow as logic, and Britain is in fact moving that way. The Bus Services Act 2025 gives every local transport authority the power to franchise its own buses and has lifted the long-standing ban on councils running their own bus companies. Liverpool, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire have all decided to follow Manchester’s lead.

Some in the industry argue for a different path: rather than taking the network back, strengthen the private arrangement through an “Enhanced Partnership”, a binding agreement under which the authority holds operators to agreed standards on ticketing, timetables and service quality, at lower cost and more quickly. That can indeed improve services, but it does not reach the heart of this story. So long as the buses are still run by private companies each taking their own fares, the authority must still reimburse them journey by journey on that unverifiable formula, and the whole apparatus of estimation and dispute stays exactly where it is. An Enhanced Partnership can reshape how services look; it cannot touch the root of the subsidy friction.

That said, taking the buses back is no free lunch either. Once an authority takes over, it shoulders the risk of passenger numbers rising and falling, and setting up franchising is slow and expensive; Manchester took five years to see it through. The difference between public and private is never whether there is a subsidy, but who absorbs its friction and who carries the risk.

So that single free bus pass is far more than a card. Behind it runs a chain of reimbursement from the public purse to private operators, and every estimate and dispute along that chain traces back to the decision, in 1985, to hand a public service to the market. Britain is now, step by step, taking it back. And when the paying hand and the collecting hand close together again, all that annual calculation and argument over which journeys were “generated” by free travel may finally lose its reason to exist.

The Same Hand Pays and Collects: Why England’s Free Bus Pass Points Towards Public Buses Read More »

The UK Free Bus Pass Explained: Who Can Get One, When You Can Travel, and Where It Works

Petrol Cars Are Twenty Times More Likely to Burn Than EVs. The Only Hard Part Is Extinguishing Them, and the Battery Is Already Solving That

Leave a Comment / Science & Tech / 胡思

A video of an electric car burning in a car park spreads across social media within hours, almost always under the same caption: an EV is a bomb on wheels. The footage is genuinely alarming, with billowing smoke and flames shooting out like a blowtorch. Yet pull the camera back, look at the statistics rather than the single frame, and the conclusion is the exact opposite.

In 2022 Sweden’s Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) recorded 23 fires among the country’s 611,000 electric vehicles, a rate of about 0.004 per cent. Over the same period its 4.4 million petrol and diesel cars produced roughly 3,400 fires, a rate of about 0.08 per cent. A combustion car, in other words, is around twenty times more likely to catch fire than an EV. The Australian project EV FireSafe, which tracks incidents worldwide, finds an even wider gap, with combustion vehicles tens of times more likely to ignite. The exact multiple varies between datasets and methods, but the direction does not: when it comes to how often a vehicle catches fire, the dangerous one has always been the petrol car, not the electric one. This is not hard to understand. A combustion engine runs on fire, thousands of tiny explosions every minute, with tens of litres of flammable liquid on board. For it to catch fire is simply for it to fail to keep the fire where the fire is meant to be. For an electric car to catch fire, a fire has to be conjured out of nothing.

What really unsettles people is a different claim: that once an EV does burn, it is very hard to put out. There is something to this. A battery fire usually begins with thermal runaway in the lithium cells, where one cell overheats itself, the failure cascades to its neighbours, and the whole reaction feeds its own energy; starving it of air barely helps, and the only real remedy is to flood the cells with water until they cool. But the weight of this difficulty is routinely overstated. It arises only in the small minority of cases where a fire actually starts, an exception within an exception. And fire services are no longer improvising. They have turned it into standard procedure: thermal-imaging cameras to find the hotspots that cannot be seen, specialised nozzles to spray the battery pack from beneath the chassis, and instructions to tow operators to watch for reignition. In Britain the International Fire Training Centre, run by Serco, has opened the country’s first dedicated electric-vehicle fire course, and in Europe the CTIF published an operational guide for these incidents in 2025. Firefighting has moved from guesswork to a written drill.

More to the point, the hard edge of the problem is being designed out at source. Early electric cars mostly used NMC (nickel manganese cobalt) cells, high in energy density but with a cathode that releases oxygen when it overheats, in effect feeding fuel to the flames. The industry has since swung heavily towards LFP (lithium iron phosphate), now close to half of the world’s EV battery capacity. Its cathode releases almost no oxygen, so runaway is both harder to trigger and far gentler when it does occur, producing mostly smoke rather than open flame. The next step, sodium-ion, has already moved from the laboratory into mass production: sodium is less chemically reactive than lithium, the runaway risk is lower still, the energy density has caught up with LFP, and the first cars carrying it are expected on the road in 2026. Each generation lowers the ceiling on how bad an electric-car fire can get.

So the terrifying image of the fire that will not go out looks increasingly like an old photograph of a previous generation of battery. Electric cars rarely catch fire to begin with, and as the chemistry evolves they are becoming both less likely to burn and easier to put out. The question worth asking is no longer whether an electric car is a bomb, but whether public perception, car-park regulations and insurance pricing will keep up with a risk that is shrinking rather than growing.

Petrol Cars Are Twenty Times More Likely to Burn Than EVs. The Only Hard Part Is Extinguishing Them, and the Battery Is Already Solving That Read More »

The UK May Be Poorer Than America, Yet Outperforms All 50 States on Social Indicators

Leave a Comment / UK Affairs / 胡思

If the United Kingdom were treated as America’s 51st state, it would probably be the poorest state by GDP per capita. Yet it would also have the longest life expectancy, the lowest rate of gun deaths, and a healthcare system that covers the entire population.

Measured by GDP per person, Britain would likely sit below all 50 American states. Over the past two decades, the United States has grown faster than the UK, driven by technology, finance and energy industries that have generated enormous wealth. Judged purely by economic output, America has been the more successful country.

The picture changes once the focus shifts from wealth creation to life outcomes. Life expectancy in the UK exceeds that of every US state. The National Health Service guarantees healthcare access for all residents, while many Americans still lack stable health coverage. Britain provides statutory paid annual leave and more extensive maternity protections, whereas there is no federal requirement for paid holiday in the United States. On measures such as homicide, gun deaths, imprisonment and road fatalities, Britain also performs better than any American state.

This raises an obvious question. If America is so much richer, why do so many indicators that directly affect quality of life point in the opposite direction?

The answer is that GDP measures the creation of wealth, not its distribution, and certainly not social outcomes. A country can generate enormous wealth while concentrating much of it among asset owners, large corporations and high earners. A higher GDP per capita does not automatically translate into longer lives, safer communities, easier access to healthcare or greater economic security for ordinary people.

The United States embodies this contradiction. It possesses the world’s most dynamic economy, home to many of the most innovative companies and industries ever created. It also offers extraordinary rewards to those who succeed. At the same time, many risks that are shared collectively in other countries are left to individuals and families. Healthcare costs, educational expenses, job insecurity and even personal safety often depend heavily on one’s financial position. The result is that an exceptionally wealthy nation can still experience lower life expectancy, higher levels of violence and higher imprisonment rates than many less affluent countries.

Britain has chosen a different model. Through taxation and public services, part of the nation’s wealth is converted into collective protection. The NHS is far from perfect, but it reflects a principle that illness should not become a financial catastrophe. Stronger labour protections, lower levels of violent crime and a broader social safety net reduce many of the risks that individuals face throughout their lives.

From this perspective, Britain’s achievement is not that it has become richer than others. It is that it has managed to produce social outcomes that many wealthier societies have not. The comparison is a reminder that the success of a country cannot be measured by GDP alone. What ultimately matters is whether wealth is transformed into longer, safer and more dignified lives.

Britain, however, faces its own challenge. America’s problem is converting wealth into broader social outcomes. Britain’s problem is generating enough wealth to sustain the outcomes it already has. Pressure on the NHS, strained public finances and underinvestment in infrastructure all reflect a prolonged period of weak economic growth. Without growth, even well designed institutions become harder to maintain.

The real lesson from comparing Britain and America is therefore not about which country is superior. It is about what societies choose to optimise for. America demonstrates that immense wealth does not automatically produce broad social wellbeing. Britain demonstrates that lower levels of wealth do not necessarily prevent a society from delivering health, security and dignity to ordinary people. The challenge for Britain is to preserve those strengths while finding new ways to generate the prosperity needed to sustain them.

The UK May Be Poorer Than America, Yet Outperforms All 50 States on Social Indicators Read More »

A Middle East spark sets Britain’s gas bills alight but cannot move its electricity

Leave a Comment / UK Affairs / 胡思

From 1 July, Britain’s energy price cap rises again, by 13 per cent. A typical dual-fuel household paying by direct debit will see its annual bill climb from £1,641 to £1,862, an extra £221, or roughly £18 a month. Yet when Ofgem published the figures on 27 May, it drew attention to something easily missed: in the same adjustment, electricity rose by about 5 per cent while gas jumped by about 24 per cent. The same storm, blowing on two fuels, struck one nearly 5 times harder than the other. That gap, not the headline 13 per cent, is the part worth reading closely.

The shock did not start in Britain. Conflict in the Middle East has pushed up international wholesale gas prices, with wholesale costs rising around 28 per cent over the past 3 months. Wholesale cost is the largest single component of the cap, roughly 40 per cent of a typical bill, and the main thing that moves it each quarter. When the wholesale gas price moves, the bill moves with it. The question is why gas passes the increase through almost in full, while electricity behaves as though wrapped in a layer of padding.

A gas bill has a simple, unforgiving structure. The price a household pays tracks the international wholesale price almost directly, with little in between to dilute the shock, so if the wholesale price rises by a quarter, the gas bill rises by a quarter, near enough to the penny. Electricity is built differently. On the British grid a gas-fired power station is often the plant that sets the wholesale electricity price, because under marginal pricing the last and most expensive plant called upon sets the price for the whole system, and that plant is frequently burning gas. By that logic, when gas rises, electricity ought to rise in step. But gas is no longer the whole of the grid. Wind, solar and nuclear do not become dearer because of a war in the Middle East, and their share of the generation mix keeps growing, placing a thick cushion between the wholesale electricity price and the global gas market. When gas spikes, that cushion absorbs part of the blow, and electricity rises by only 5 per cent. Ofgem put it plainly: the smaller rise in electricity reflects the larger amount of renewable generation on the system.

Set the unit rates side by side and the gap is not only clear but moving. In the first quarter of this year, electricity cost about 27.7p per unit and gas about 5.9p, making electricity 4.7 times the price of gas. From April, electricity fell to about 24.7p and the multiple eased to about 4.3. From July, gas rises to about 7.3p and electricity to about 26.1p, narrowing it further to about 3.6. The April fall came mainly because electricity grew cheaper; the July narrowing because gas grew dearer. The two have different causes, yet both push the ratio down. Electricity costing more per unit than gas is normal everywhere; what is abnormal is the sheer size of Britain’s gap. Most of Europe sits at around 2 to 3 times, while Britain has long hovered near 4 to 5. Narrowing to 3.6 is a step back towards the level common across the continent. And for any household weighing a switch to electric, that headline gap is not the whole story.

What matters is heat-pump efficiency and time-of-use pricing. A properly installed air-source heat pump has a seasonal performance factor of roughly 3 to 5, so each unit of electricity it draws delivers 3 to 5 units of heat, which on the flat cap rate already puts the cost of heating level with gas, and a high-performing unit ahead of it. Paired with a tariff built for heat pumps, such as Cosy Octopus, which drops to around 13p in off-peak windows, the cost of heat falls to 3 or 4p; for households with an electric car, Intelligent Octopus Go brings the overnight whole-home rate down to about 8p. Add solar panels and a home battery to store daytime generation and cheap overnight power for later use, and the bill falls further still. An induction hob tells the same story: nearly all the energy reaches the pan, whereas a gas hob loses close to half its heat to the air. Together, this lifts a household’s energy out of a market a distant war can move, onto the electricity side, where the rise is smaller and the ground steadier.

So is it reasonable to load the increase almost entirely onto gas while electricity barely stirs? It is, and more so than it first appears. The cap exists to let suppliers recover their efficient costs and no more, enough to stay solvent without overcharging, and the wave of supplier collapses in 2021 happened precisely because prices had been held below cost as wholesale prices surged. A cap that reflects true costs, letting expensive gas be expensive and cheaper electricity be cheaper, is honest accounting rather than an arbitrary carve-up.

Look deeper, though, and it is Britain’s old arrangement that was the unreasonable one. For years the levies that fund wind, solar and other low-carbon schemes, together with the cost of social support programmes, were piled overwhelmingly onto electricity bills, while gas burned at home escaped almost all of them, and generating electricity carries a price for its carbon while heating a home by burning gas does not. Analysts have called this a reverse carbon tax, penalising the clean fuel and sparing the dirty one, inflating the ratio of electricity to gas and making heat pumps look dearer than they really are. Why did April’s electricity rate fall? The answer is here: the government removed a long-standing levy from power bills, the cost shifting off electricity from April, and that quarter’s cap eased as a result. Now that gas absorbs the full increase, with that levy shift alongside it, 2 forces with different causes are pushing the distorted ratio back towards something rational. Keeping gas expensive when gas is expensive, while lifting costs that never belonged solely on electricity, is not an extra burden. It is a return to a more sensible basis.

The real message of this increase is not the 13 per cent, but the crack between 5 and 24. The wider that crack, the further Britain’s electricity has escaped a global gas market it cannot control. A single conflict in the Middle East can still send gas bills up by a quarter in a single quarter, but it can no longer drag electricity up with them. The more thoroughly Britain moves its grid off gas, the wider that crack grows, and a fully electrified home need no longer pay for a war far away.

A Middle East spark sets Britain’s gas bills alight but cannot move its electricity Read More »

Engine Off, Climate On: The Quiet Legal Edge of a Parked EV

The Ceiling of a Bus Lane: How Far Bus Rapid Transit Can Carry a City, and Where Rail Must Take Over

Leave a Comment / Infrastructure / 胡思

The appeal of bus rapid transit, or BRT, lies in a promise that sounds almost too good: roughly the cost of buses for something close to the performance of rail. Lift the buses out of congested traffic and put them in a physically segregated lane of their own. Give the stations prepaid fare gates and platforms level with the bus floor, so passengers board through several doors at once, as they would on a metro. Give the buses priority at junctions. Put these elements together and the buses run faster than ordinary street traffic and carry far more than an ordinary bus route. Curitiba, in Brazil, pioneered the approach in 1974, proving that with the right design a single road can deliver something close to the efficiency of a rail line.

Under the right conditions BRT delivers genuinely impressive results. Bogotá’s TransMilenio carries well over 1.6 million passengers a day across its network and still holds the world record for a bus system, moving more than 43,000 people per hour in a single direction at peak. Jakarta’s TransJakarta has grown into the longest BRT network in the world, with daily ridership above 1.4 million. Istanbul’s Metrobüs, the only intercontinental BRT line, carries close to a million a day. Guangzhou’s system, opened along Zhongshan Avenue in 2010, is smaller but intense, moving some 25,000 to 28,000 passengers per hour per direction at peak and around 800,000 a day, more than any single metro line in the city, and it was the first BRT anywhere to link directly into a metro station. For a city with limited funds, fast-growing demand and a need for results within a few years rather than a decade, BRT is one of the few high-capacity options that is genuinely achievable.

Yet even the best BRT runs into a ceiling, and the ceiling is physical. There are only three ways to add capacity: run buses more often, build more passing lanes and platforms, or use bigger vehicles. The strongest systems reach for articulated and even bi-articulated buses carrying well over 200 passengers each, squeezing out capacity without adding frequency. Every lever, though, has a limit. A bus can only be made so long before stations must grow and dwell times stretch, and beyond a certain density the lanes and stations begin to clog, buses queue at stops and bunch behind one another, and throughput falls rather than rises. The Bogotá figures depend on very wide roads, multiple overtaking lanes and several platforms at each station, conditions most cities cannot reproduce; the textbook ceiling for BRT sits closer to 20,000 per hour per direction. Rail works the other way around. Couple several carriages into a single train and one driver moves several hundred, even more than a thousand, passengers at once. Add the full grade separation of a metro, which never competes with the street, and headways fall to around 90 seconds while capacity reaches 30,000 to 60,000 per hour per direction and beyond. This is not a gap that better management can close. It is a difference built into the two systems from the start.

What makes it harder still is that once a BRT corridor is built, the city is locked into it. Converting a busway into segregated light rail is not impossible in principle: Ottawa rebuilt a transitway it had run for more than three decades into a light rail line, opened in 2019, the first such conversion in North America. The obstacle is rarely the load-bearing of the running surface, since a busway built to road standards can often take track directly on its existing base. What actually stalls a conversion is everything else: platforms of the wrong height and length, the wide side-platform layout of a BRT station that suits rail poorly, the need to string overhead power, tighter curve-radius requirements, and the disruption of closing a perfectly good bus service while the work is done. For the great majority of systems, never designed for conversion in the first place, this amounts to rebuilding the corridor almost from scratch. Sunk costs, existing operating contracts and political resistance pile up, and inertia drags the whole thing out, slow and expensive. Guangzhou, where ridership has slipped and some express routes have been merged or withdrawn as the metro network expands, shows just how awkward that transition can be.

There is a further cost that bites hardest in wealthy countries. BRT capacity is built out of large numbers of buses and large numbers of drivers, and the higher the wages, the worse that arithmetic looks. Rail moves several hundred passengers behind a single driver, and a metro can move towards driverless operation and strike the cost of the driver out altogether. In high-wage economies a serious high-demand corridor almost never chooses BRT, which is why large European and North American cities grit their teeth and build rail. The natural home of BRT is where labour is relatively cheap and the city is still expanding quickly.

In the end BRT is not a budget metro. It is a different tool, matched to a different stage of a city’s growth and a different cost structure. In the right place at the right moment it can do a great deal with very little money. Put it on a corridor that should have been built for rail, in the belief that this saves money, and it usually does no more than push the real cost, along with all that inertia, into the future.

The Ceiling of a Bus Lane: How Far Bus Rapid Transit Can Carry a City, and Where Rail Must Take Over Read More »

Author name: 胡思