You forgot evil monopolistic pricing practices and greedy retrenchment!
23 17 46 11
Actually Dave,
It is Mr. Grayling, not Sir or Lord.
As of yet, he carries no Crown Title.
I find it funny that you call an MP in the House of Commons of one of the biggest industrialized nations in the world, who publicly expressed the need to review his country’s policy, an economic moron, when you, technically, don’t exist at all.
And most of us can read the words written and draw a sensible conclusion from them, we don’t need to “read between the lines”, which contains nothing but empty space, something I am sure your very familiar with.
jeaton wrote: Well I am sure glad you set me straight on the whole situation. A couple things I don't quite understand. If ridership has gone up to the point that capacity is being used up and fares have increased so much, why isn't money being spent to increase capacity? Wouldn't the private companies make even more money if they had the capacity to increase their business? Further, if the companies could make even more money hauling freight, why are they ignoring that business? By the way, the Tories are the political conservatives of the country. The people and politicians of your state are considered very conservative. Fascists?
Well I am sure glad you set me straight on the whole situation.
A couple things I don't quite understand. If ridership has gone up to the point that capacity is being used up and fares have increased so much, why isn't money being spent to increase capacity? Wouldn't the private companies make even more money if they had the capacity to increase their business? Further, if the companies could make even more money hauling freight, why are they ignoring that business?
By the way, the Tories are the political conservatives of the country. The people and politicians of your state are considered very conservative. Fascists?
jeaton wrote:Well I am sure glad you set me straight on the whole situation. A couple things I don't quite understand. If ridership has gone up to the point that capacity is being used up and fares have increased so much, why isn't money being spent to increase capacity? Wouldn't the private companies make even more money if they had the capacity to increase their business? Further, if the companies could make even more money hauling freight, why are they ignoring that business? By the way, the Tories are the political conservatives of the country. The people and politicians of your state are considered very conservative. Fascists?
Speaking of mistakes...oh, hi FM...
FOFLMAO...
LC
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
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.
Sir Grayling is either less than honest, or an economic moron.
Just a few bugs to work out.
From the UTU Website
"Tories switch track on rail policy
Launching a Conservative Rail Review today the shadow transport secretary Chris Grayling will say that privatization pushed up the cost of running the railway system -- and hence fares -- and the party will not seek to re-privatize the system if it returns to power.
Speaking to a meeting of rail industry figures Mr. Grayling will say: "We think, with hindsight, that the complete separation of track and train into separate businesses at the time of privatization was not right for our railways.
"We think that the separation has helped push up the cost of running the railways -- and hence fares -- and is now slowing decisions about capacity improvements.
"Too many people and organizations are now involved in getting things done -- so nothing happens. As a result, the industry lacks clarity about who is in charge and accountable for decisions."
A review, leading to a strategy paper next year, will be carried out "with a view to securing a much greater degree of integration between track and train."
Mr. Grayling will also warn that passengers are facing higher fares and greater overcrowding in the next few years because no increase in capacity is planned before 2014 despite a projected 30% growth in passenger numbers.
"All of this adds up to more and more passengers, on more and more overcrowded trains, and with constant upward pressure on fares to try and take the sting out of overcrowding. Frankly, I don't think this is sustainable," he will say.
Mr. Grayling will add: "We are not expecting to recreate British Rail, but we do want to work with the industry to identify a better structure to ensure it can meet the challenges of the next decade."
While politicians should be removed from making decisions on the railways he will say that the Tories do not intend to take the rail network back into public ownership but that new integrated organizations would be expected to work under franchise rather than own the track.
The aim would be, however, to ensure there is greater scope for more long-term investment decisions which are often impossible under the current shorter franchise arrangements.
"The new structure would also have to protect the interests of freight users to get more freight off the roads. Of paramount importance in the work we do will be ensuring that any new structure must protect the interests of freight users and encourage future growth in rail freight."
Mr. Grayling will also indicate the Conservatives would give railway workers financial incentives to improve customer services and prevent strikes.
"We want to see rail workers share in the future financial success of the railways, particularly to discourage future militancy and strike action. We regard the people who work on our railways as skilled professionals, responsible for the safety, operation, logistics and customer service of our network. We think they should share in its success and have a real incentive to help improve the service it offers."
(The preceding report was published by The Guardian on Monday, July 17, 2006.)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.