Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Yep, another unbiased report from the UTU (insert sarcastic smiley here). However, if you read between the lines, you will see that this is more a criticism of privatization of the British rail system than of having separate infrastructure and operating entities.  In fact, the very first paragraph states that privatization was the "mistake".  What the quotee does is to blur the lines of distinction between the act of privatization and the act of separating track from train.  He makes the allegation that separation is the cause of higher fares, when in fact privatization is the real cause of higher fares.  When the railroads were run by the government, they were not expected to make a profit, rather they were effectively subsidized.  The fares charged for using the passenger trains under British Rail did not cover the cost of providing the service by a long shot.  (Hmmmm, sounds like Amtrak to me!) Now that fares are expected to cover costs and provide a profit, of course they are gonna go up!  Put that one in the "duh" file, will you Jay? Funny, but there is no mention here of comparative freight rates pre-privatization vs post-privatization.  The whole idea of open access is to allow natural market forces to drive decision making, which means moving the stuff that makes money, e.g. freight, not passengers.  However, in Europe it is considered a natural right that citizens will have rail passenger services.  It is hard wired into the socialist tapestry of the Continent, and is the number one reason that growth in rail freight is stymied.  Doesn't really matter if it is private separated track and train operations, or private integrated track and train operations, freight will always play second fiddle to passenger trains in Europe.  The big difference between private OA operations and private integrated operations is that under OA, rail freight at least has a chance of growth, since 3rd party operators can bid for slots.  That is what is happening now in most of Europe, slowly but surely.  Under integrated operations, freight has no chance, because political forces will demand passengers first of the integrated operator, and 3rd party freight entities will be left out in the cold .That is the real political aim of the Fascists........er, I mean the "Tories" - use the "mistake" of rail privatization as political tool to get votes.  Remember, passengers vote, freight does not.  Re-read the article, and you will see it is focused on higher passenger rates, not on the ostensible attempts at getting freight off roads and onto rail.  In truth, in this article OA is the straw man taking the pot shots for the higher passenger fares associated with privatization.  Take out OA and replace it with private integrated operations - you still will have higher passenger fares, and like the US you will have a lack of infrastructural investment to keep up with demands.  All that privatized integrated operations will accomplish is to create one or two monopolistic fiefdoms.  Yeah, that'll get those passenger rates down.[(-D][(-D][(-D] Sir Grayling is either less than honest, or an economic moron.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag