On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:16:49 GMT, in misc.trans****t.urban-transit
Martin Edwards <big_mart_98@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
<Bxzyj.69719$jH4.23599@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:46:58 +0900, in misc.trans****t.urban-transit
>> Miles Bader <miles@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in <87tzjq46zh.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>> Jym Dyer <jym@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>>> =v= Of course, massive oil subsidy is the only reason that
>>>> wasteful trucking has been competitive (false-economical) with
>>>> rail in the first place, but rising oil costs are starting to
>>>> make some things undeniable.
>>> There's also the massive subsidies to maintain the highway system in
the
>>> first place -- you constantly see complaints that trucking is
>>> responsible for 90% of road wear, but pays very little of thath cost.
>>
>> Trucks pay for a share of the road through taxes or tolls, but they do
>> have to share with others. Rail has decided that they don't want to
>> share, except through contract, so they have to pay for their own
>> dedicated routes. Tough for them. We would be much better off if rail
>> had competitive carriers on all trackage and the tracks were run by a
>> utility.
>
>The system that has failed so spectacularly in the British privatisation.
Why did it fail in the UK? Did the regulators let the utility ignore its
duty to maintain the tracks? Did it charge too much?
|
