"Free Lunch" <lunch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:p7ils397jbalt0grmrla1usa1efv7bth01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?
Last time I was in the UK, the rail system looked to be working just
fine...
|
