Amy Blanken****p wrote:
> "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...
>
>
There are some very good train operators, notably Chiltern Trains, but
see the reply which should come in above.
--
Cor****ate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”
|
