Thanks for the response wjstix. I'm sure I got some "bum scoop" on this one.
Poor wand'ring one! Though thou hast surely strayed, Take heart of grace, Thy steps retrace, Poor wand'ring one!
--William Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan, The Pirates of Penzance
i THNK WE HAVE WANDERED A BIT!
Paul Milenkovic schlimm All I care to say in answer to your rambling comment is that you might try reading what I say more accurately. schlimm As to your own views, etc., if you choose to promote them in a progressive bastion like UW Madison, a less than enthusiastic response is to be expected. I can read what you wrote, and I don't know how to render your position more accurately than to quote it verbatim. The question is, how do I infer what you mean by what you write, more accurately? I am sitting here in progressive-bastion Madison, WI with views, that I am told, that are not consonant with the majority opinion. Is this in any form in any way inaccurate? And what inference or conclusion am I supposed to draw from this? That I should keep quiet if I want to have any friends? That I ought to leave where I live and work for believing as I do? Could a "reasonable person" draw any other conclusion? I guess I have been told that my views are out-of-sync with where I live for daring to suggest that we consider what an Amtrak critic has to say even if a person has a political slant that we disagree with. Is that part correct? And suggesting that we take the public writings of a Libertarian gadfly of passenger trains into account, does that make me a Libertarian? (To quote Larry David, not that anything is wrong with that!) So what is this less than enthusiastic response that I am getting (these are words that you wrote that I am not quite clear on)? Is it that I attended a meeting in the Middleton Public Library in June 2010, where a somewhat progressive group of local train supporters were going all "TEA Party" on a hapless representative of WisDOT whose job was to smooth over public relations snags with WisDOT projects, and they were doing this because they bitterly disagreed with a somewhat more progressive faction (the then Madison mayor who wanted a Downtown train station following a "greener" vision than the passenger train enthusiasts)? And in the aftermath of this, I meekly and gently sent e-mails to the officers of the local train advocacy group, suggesting that we show political solidarity with the mayor of Madison (do you want to see the text of my e-mails for proof?), put aside our differences on the location of the train station, and "stand shoulder to shoulder with the Mayor, the WisDOT Secretary and the Governor" to get this train project underway as quickly as possible, because, turncoat to the progressive cause that I am, I was reading Web sites where I saw the pendulum swinging in the 2010 elections against liberal and progressive reforms that addressed much bigger-picture issues than the trains? Is this what you mean that my views elicit a less than enthusiastic response here in Madison, and my pragmatic suggestion of "standing shoulder to shoulder to get the train line built before the political winds shift" was ignored because I offend progressive people by telling them to watch out for shifting political winds because of why the opposition party is gaining support? Am I rambling if I approach the question, from several angles, of why is that a person needs to be in lock-step agreement with the majority opinion? Accuracy is important to me, and it is important for me to know.
schlimm All I care to say in answer to your rambling comment is that you might try reading what I say more accurately.
All I care to say in answer to your rambling comment is that you might try reading what I say more accurately.
schlimm As to your own views, etc., if you choose to promote them in a progressive bastion like UW Madison, a less than enthusiastic response is to be expected.
As to your own views, etc., if you choose to promote them in a progressive bastion like UW Madison, a less than enthusiastic response is to be expected.
I can read what you wrote, and I don't know how to render your position more accurately than to quote it verbatim. The question is, how do I infer what you mean by what you write, more accurately?
I am sitting here in progressive-bastion Madison, WI with views, that I am told, that are not consonant with the majority opinion. Is this in any form in any way inaccurate? And what inference or conclusion am I supposed to draw from this? That I should keep quiet if I want to have any friends? That I ought to leave where I live and work for believing as I do? Could a "reasonable person" draw any other conclusion?
I guess I have been told that my views are out-of-sync with where I live for daring to suggest that we consider what an Amtrak critic has to say even if a person has a political slant that we disagree with. Is that part correct? And suggesting that we take the public writings of a Libertarian gadfly of passenger trains into account, does that make me a Libertarian? (To quote Larry David, not that anything is wrong with that!)
So what is this less than enthusiastic response that I am getting (these are words that you wrote that I am not quite clear on)?
Is it that I attended a meeting in the Middleton Public Library in June 2010, where a somewhat progressive group of local train supporters were going all "TEA Party" on a hapless representative of WisDOT whose job was to smooth over public relations snags with WisDOT projects, and they were doing this because they bitterly disagreed with a somewhat more progressive faction (the then Madison mayor who wanted a Downtown train station following a "greener" vision than the passenger train enthusiasts)?
And in the aftermath of this, I meekly and gently sent e-mails to the officers of the local train advocacy group, suggesting that we show political solidarity with the mayor of Madison (do you want to see the text of my e-mails for proof?), put aside our differences on the location of the train station, and "stand shoulder to shoulder with the Mayor, the WisDOT Secretary and the Governor" to get this train project underway as quickly as possible, because, turncoat to the progressive cause that I am, I was reading Web sites where I saw the pendulum swinging in the 2010 elections against liberal and progressive reforms that addressed much bigger-picture issues than the trains?
Is this what you mean that my views elicit a less than enthusiastic response here in Madison, and my pragmatic suggestion of "standing shoulder to shoulder to get the train line built before the political winds shift" was ignored because I offend progressive people by telling them to watch out for shifting political winds because of why the opposition party is gaining support?
Am I rambling if I approach the question, from several angles, of why is that a person needs to be in lock-step agreement with the majority opinion?
Accuracy is important to me, and it is important for me to know.
Perhaps try cutting back on caffeine? Look, I don't personally care what you believe in or if you are in the majority or a lone voice crying in the wilderness. Entirely your business and your right. And I don't have any interest in your experiences with folks in Madison. But on point of the thread, I largely agree with your positions on passenger rail in Britain.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Back to the original topic, the assertion that British rail privatization failed. Someone here linked to Randall O'Toole, who reasoned that as a partial privatization, it didn't succeed as well (in his opinion) if we did it his way, but that it was a lot more successful than Amtrak. That person even made a joke, calling Mr. O'Toole the "auto-planner" for his preference for cars when the Web site is called the "Anti-Planner" for Mr. O'Toole's preference for market solutions. That line of discussion prompted a lot of dumping on Mr. O'Toole for his political views, pretty much reading past the constructive suggestion in his article.
I suggested, hey wait a minute, don't dismiss Randall O'Toole out-of-hand because even though he has an agenda, he raises points we need to address in advocating for trains, and then I am labeled a Libertarian and a social outcast where I live, and yes, I read what is written and it is pretty clear on that.
The idea that because I live in progressive-bastion Madison that I am lonely, friendless, and alienated for deviating from the progressive party line, that is something that a person could take some serious offense at. There are cultures that value social conformity, but that is not the prevailing culture in the United States. And no, I am not misreading what is written here.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
oltmannd I think it is critically important to understand O'Toole's point of view. He is not some nut with his head in the sand, howling at the moon (strange mixed metaphor?), if only to be able to identify factual errors and omissions. His approach is typical of most - start with an answer and work backward with supporting facts - bending to fit and leaving out what doesn't help. (tail wagging the dog...)
I think it is critically important to understand O'Toole's point of view. He is not some nut with his head in the sand, howling at the moon (strange mixed metaphor?), if only to be able to identify factual errors and omissions. His approach is typical of most - start with an answer and work backward with supporting facts - bending to fit and leaving out what doesn't help. (tail wagging the dog...)
This start-with-an-answer-and-work-backward-with-supporting-facts takes place with Randall O'Toole, but it takes place on "our side" too of advocating for trains.
That is why, at least to initiate discussion of the energy efficiency question of trains, I recommend David Lawyer's Web site. David Lawyer at least starts with the premise that we ought to do something about the gobs of energy used in the transportation sector rather than the Libertarian "let consumers be the judge of how much energy they want to use at the market price" and he comes up with some counterintuitive conclusions regarding whether trains are energy efficient or not.
The other thing about Amtrak is that someone must have "gotten the word" about the value of energy efficiency, either in promoting public support for trains as a potential energy-saving mode or because the fuel bills got to high. If you look at the ORNL or BTS Web sites on energy usage, there have been some dramatic energy savings at Amtrak, very recently, in other words, recently in relation to a couple years ago when I started "beating on the dead horse" of Amtrak not being particularly energy efficient around here.
Amtrak ridership and load factors have increased -- a little bit -- but something else must be going on. My theory is HEP. There may be a lot more Diesel fuel used simply to air condition the train cars, not to mention to heat them in winter, with electric heat generated by a Diesel genset, a particularly thermodynamically poor way to heat anything. Just like a building, anything with water service in it (a train car with a bathroom), and even things without water service so you don't wreck other things, need to be kept at a minimum temperature when not in service, and if Amtrak had been running the HEP on parked trainsets, that can account for a lot of fuel use.
Is Amtrak using utility plug-power with parked trains in more instances and more often? When you are subsidized at 20 cents to the passenger mile, it was probably easy to say fuel costs are "a minor expense" that escapes this kind of scrutiny.
schlimm Unlike O'Toole, who still thinks British rail privatization is coming up short, i believe it is working quite well. Passenger loads are up. The main reason why the subsidy per PM is lower than on the continent is that the fares per PM are much higher. To not mention that fact is an indication of why O'Toole is more interested in looking at rails as part of his ideological advocacy than impartially analyzing transportation. As to your own views, etc., if you choose to promote them in a progressive bastion like UW Madison, a less than enthusiastic response is to be expected. When I was still faculty, i thought it wiser to remain silent about political views while on campus, since it was irrelevant to my field. It certainly seems irrelevant to engineering.
Unlike O'Toole, who still thinks British rail privatization is coming up short, i believe it is working quite well. Passenger loads are up. The main reason why the subsidy per PM is lower than on the continent is that the fares per PM are much higher. To not mention that fact is an indication of why O'Toole is more interested in looking at rails as part of his ideological advocacy than impartially analyzing transportation.
As to your own views, etc., if you choose to promote them in a progressive bastion like UW Madison, a less than enthusiastic response is to be expected. When I was still faculty, i thought it wiser to remain silent about political views while on campus, since it was irrelevant to my field. It certainly seems irrelevant to engineering.
Where do I begin?
I was instrumental in Faculty Senate in rolling back our "speech code", influencing votes with my remarks by pointing to examples in the highest places where such restrictions on speech work against those holding Progressive views as much as Conservatives ones. I don't talk politics in the classroom or in class contact hours, but the idea that one should "remain silent about political views while on campus" is overtly silly. The idea that I need to be in lock-step with progressive views representing the majority opinion where I live or work is the strangest anti-democracy, anti-free speech, anti-individual anti-free thinking sentiment I have heard.
That views about the place of trains in society are irrelevant to engineering is an odd perspective if I ever heard one. One of the requirements of this job in this particular place is disclosing any patentable ideas to our research foundation.
The research foundation, in turn reserves the right to patent or not patent any ideas on the basis of whether there is a glimmer of any hope of any financial gain. There are some famous patents for such things as vitamin-D fortification of milk and a type of rodent poison also used in controlled doses as a "blood thinner" for persons with heart problems, patents bringing in much money that funds many worthwhile activities around "the U", along with a portfolio of much less financially renumerative patents.
I disclosed an idea for a novel guided axle linkage improving upon the systems used in the United Aircraft Turbo Train and the current Talgo. This idea was refused by the research foundation. The directors of the research foundation of this public university sited in the bastion of progressive thinking, expressed the view to me that they did not see much of a market for "high-speed trains" in the United States, the application fees for the coverage needed for foreign patents not being "worth the expense" as the only firm with any interest in what I was describing is Patentes Talgo, SA.
I developed another linkage along related engineering principles, but this time it was for a robotic wrist with a large range of motion. That idea was accepted with enthusiasm, and that patent assigned to the research foundation is US 8,245,595 B2. That patent may never make any money for the research foundation to support work at the University either, but at least there is a possibility for such a thing whereas in the eyes of the directors at the research foundation, a linkage for a high-speed train offers only a remote possibility. A person needs to get out more in progressive/higher education circles to learn that a belief in the inevitablity of trains is not that widely held.
As to the reading of O'Toole, are we even looking at the same link? Mr. O'Toole admits that the British rail privatization is not the way he would do it on account of his personal philosophy (as in a "perfect world" he would do without government interference in trains, but if you buy into the idea that the government should support trains, what they are doing hasn't been half bad). He reasons that what they are doing is a whole lot more effective than Amtrak. This stands in opposition to the parent post to this thread that British rail privatiztion is "a failure." Yeah, yeah, stopped clock being right twice a day, but the preconceived notions of what Mr. O'Toole is about are so strong that a person can't accept anything he is saying.
1. IMO it has not "failed." It transports more passengers, a lot more, than prior to privatization, but charging much higher fares.
2. Detractors, such as O'Toole, fault it for not having a unitary (operations and track) private corporation. Most would agree, however, that such a corporation would lose money and still require a subsidy to continue safely. The British experience was exactly this and it took several accidents b/c of poor track maintenance to lead to re-nationalization of the track.
3. So British rail is a hybrid, with more than one private contractor/operator and a government owned and maintained RoW. The public can judge which ones are better (Northern, Virgin, East Coast Main, etc.) and their opinions are taken into account when contracts are up for reauthorization.
Seems like the best arrangement for the UK, at least.
oltmanndBut, those numbers can be harsh. For example, when Amtrak started, a car cost $4,000 and a passenger locomotive cost $250,000 ( a ratio of 62:1). Now, a car costs $25,000 and a passenger locomotive costs $6M (a ratio of 240:1). Why is this?
Good point. Another comparison, which you would know, is the cost of a freight loco in 1970 vs a fairly comparable one now (and yes, with better mileage, controls, etc.). Is the ratio similar to 24:1, i.e., within +/- one SD?
Paul MilenkovicPassenger trains are energy efficient. Passenger trains are cost effective. Passenger trains will help alleviate congestion. Passenger trains, to the extent they are available, are a preferred mode of transportation. These things are all true, aren't they, and we accept these statement without question? In the 40+ years since the inception of Amtrak, people have started to question these self-evident truths. Maybe you disagree with their assumptions, maybe you question their numbers, but in these 40 years, people have started to "run some numbers" to question the assumptions underlying why we think passenger trains are a social good meritorious of a government subsidy.
But, those numbers can be harsh. For example, when Amtrak started, a car cost $4,000 and a passenger locomotive cost $250,000 ( a ratio of 62:1). Now, a car costs $25,000 and a passenger locomotive costs $6M (a ratio of 240:1). Why is this?
Worse yet, that $4000 car in 1971 got 12 mpg. That $25,000 car gets 25 mpg -- double! (and it's considerably nicer, runs better, lasts longer and is easier to keep) What of the train? Car capacity is up about 1/3 and fuel economy is up about 20% Not keeping pace...
Can the gap be restored? Sure. But somebody has to make the case and push for it.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Firelock76 I've heard it's now illegal for British citizens to fly the Union Flag, what's popularly called the "Union Jack", hence the proliferation of flags with the "Cross of Saint George." Is this true?
I've heard it's now illegal for British citizens to fly the Union Flag, what's popularly called the "Union Jack", hence the proliferation of flags with the "Cross of Saint George." Is this true?
schlimm Nice territory, but kinda far from campus ( 70 + miles).
Nice territory, but kinda far from campus ( 70 + miles).
I have only passed through that territory for family visits some distance beyond. Ah, the automobile: on demand, leave-when-I-want, that take whoever and whatever of our belongings mode of transportation.
Many of our students travel by highway modes of transportation, some by bus, many by sharing rides in cars that kind of distance to be with their parents on weekends on a regular basis. Most of these trips will never be served by the rail mode even under the most ambitious construction program. I can see a role for trains in certain markets (I do, I do, I swear I do. I am not a Libertarian! Please, please, sir, I am not . . . aaaaaaarrrrggggggghhhhhhhh!), but in all of the criticism leveled at automobiles, people miss the limited potential for trains and the broad benefits people obtain from cars.
I have written on these pages more than once of growing up in Chicago with trains and transit, of Father moving the family from the city limits out to the near suburbs, not to commute to the city for a job but because the job had relocated out to the suburbs. I have commuted to a job on the pre-Metra C&NW. I have shared my account here of an exchange I had with Randall O'Toole, where he was gracious enough to answer my e-mail taking his transit load factor and equivalent highway lanes numbers to task in discussing the benefits of Metra serving 150,000 jobs (300,000 daily riders taking into account two direction to the daily commute -- people can correct me on the numbers, I don't want to get into one of these arguments that it is in reality 330 or 400,000 riders).
Mr. O'Toole begged the question on the freeway lane equivalency to Metra, pointing out to me that "twice that number of jobs" had been added over some recent time period in the Chicago metropolitan area, in what I call "the Toll Road suburbs."
As to the blanket discrediting of Mr. O'Toole, I don't remember even once around here that anyone dared to link to his writings, dispute his statistics, and have a reasoned discussion as to why they are right or wrong or may not even matter. All a person seems to need to do is say "idealogue" (or more correctly, ideologue -- dining/dinning, lose/loose, I guess I shouldn't cast stones as I am not immune from grammar and spelling errors). "Libertarian", "Cato Institute", and goodness forbid, "The Federalist Society", that certainly settles any further discussion of this topic around here.
So I dare suggest that for whatever his political warts that people take a more reasoned look at what Mr. O'Toole has to say to gain a perspective why not everyone is "on board with " we need to spend much more public money on trains. And I am sure he makes factual errors, much as the head of WisPIRG told a whopper in a letter-to-the-editor of the Journal Sentinel that "(passenger) trains are five times more energy efficient than cars" in the context of advocating for the Wisconsin Talgo. But Mr. O'Toole separated his political agenda from the pragmatic aspects of the gains in trains and ridership in the U.K., so like, what is the problem.
So I dare to suggest that we take a more careful look at what Mr. O'Toole and other train critics have to say, I am expressing Sympathy for the Devil. I am not only defending a Libertarian, I am a Libertarian, and I am wearing out my channel selection finger changing the TV in the Atrium of Engineering Hall from MSNBC to Fox News when no one is looking. I am wearing out my welcome in my adopted home of Madison, Wisconsin, and it is inferred that I am without friends.
Oh, I have friends, only we meet in private houses behind drawn curtains. "Mr. Milenkovic, are you or have you ever been a Libertarian, a member of the Libertarian Party, affiliated group, or any other organization with a bad attitude about government support for a decent train system?" Yes, the Highway 26-US 41 corridor, didn't someone who once asked that kind of question come from there?
Oh, and one more thing -- about my "avatar" that features an automobile. You probably know by now my lack of patience with glib tropes about matters transportation. One such trope is that "GM destroyed all of the electric cars (leased to customers, mainly in CA and AZ)" suggesting some kind of oil-lobby conspiracy. I actually believed that until I stumbled across this GM EV-1 in the portico of Engineering Centers Building where the WSOR passes by. Turns out many of these cars were donated to universities for evaluation much as done here; that portico is used by our Hybrid Vehicle Team for the public display of their active projects. I had one of the grad students on smoking break snap this photo of me "hamming it up" in a "who, me?" gesture.
schlimm If you wish to have Libertarian or even "Bring back King George!" views, that is your choice and I am glad you are happy with that perspective, though you must feel quite isolated sometimes in Madison..
If you wish to have Libertarian or even "Bring back King George!" views, that is your choice and I am glad you are happy with that perspective, though you must feel quite isolated sometimes in Madison..
Isolated? Not quite -- according to your analysis of the situation, and through the miracle of highways and automobile transportation, I have numerous friends starting at Highway 26 just south of Rosendale and continuing clear through the Fox River Valley to just south of Green Bay.
schlimm Paul: The smiley face was for Mr."ontheBNSF" in reference to his humorous error in calling O'Toole the "auto-planner." Seemed much the lighter than your very funny but rather sarcastic portrayal of another forum poster who claims he is not a rail advocate.
Paul: The smiley face was for Mr."ontheBNSF" in reference to his humorous error in calling O'Toole the "auto-planner." Seemed much the lighter than your very funny but rather sarcastic portrayal of another forum poster who claims he is not a rail advocate.
Nah it was not an error autoplanner is an appropriate discription.
Railroad to Freedom
One possible of why BR works somewhat better is that infrastructure & operations are separate and it is difficult to mix the money pots so each geets more ?
John WR Joseph Henchman of The Tax Foundation found: Randal O'Toole confuses Federal Taxes with state and local revenue. Randal O'Toole uses motor vehicle registration taxes without subtracting associated expenses. Rahdao O'Toole double counts revenue. Those are facts; not opinions.
Joseph Henchman of The Tax Foundation found:
Randal O'Toole confuses Federal Taxes with state and local revenue.
Randal O'Toole uses motor vehicle registration taxes without subtracting associated expenses.
Rahdao O'Toole double counts revenue.
Those are facts; not opinions.
I confess to not knowing either gentleman. I further confess that I don't know how O'Toole's views on U.S. highway funding, irrespective of whether they are on point, fit into a discussion of whether privatization of Brit Rail is a failure.
Paul: The smiley face was for Mr."ontheBNSF" in reference to his humorous error in calling O'Toole the "auto-planner." Seemed much the lighter than your very funny but rather sarcastic portrayal of another forum poster who claims he is not a rail advocate. As to O'Toole, well, yes, IMO he is an ideologue [though not an "idealogue" whatever that is] and pretty much a One-Trick Pony ideologue at that. Other posters and analysts elsewhere have documented his numerous errors.As to the privatization of British Rail, it has been quite successful, IMO, but O'Toole says it hasn't because it isn't private enough in his desire for purity. If you wish to have Libertarian or even "Bring back King George!" views, that is your choice and I am glad you are happy with that perspective, though you must feel quite isolated sometimes in Madison..
schlimm Randall O'Toole is primarily an ideologue (Cato Institute), not a useful source for factual and critical analysis of transportation. His blog title says it all - "The Anti-Planner" - not as cited by the OP, "the auto-planner." His motto: "Dedicated to the sunset of government planning" is more ideology than serious transportation studies.
Randall O'Toole is primarily an ideologue (Cato Institute), not a useful source for factual and critical analysis of transportation. His blog title says it all - "The Anti-Planner" - not as cited by the OP, "the auto-planner." His motto: "Dedicated to the sunset of government planning" is more ideology than serious transportation studies.
Randall O'Toole may be an idealogue, he may (in your opinion) play fast and loose with the facts (as some people see them), he may be all of those things. But ignore him at your peril.
The way I see it is that the "Randall O'Toole's of the world" did not exist as a force influencing opinion back in 1971 at the founding of Amtrak. Sure, you had people who were skeptical of passenger trains, who could do without passenger trains. But by and large, "our" claims (the passenger trains advocacy community, and I speak of "our" since I have been "at this" since the late 1960's) have largely been accepted.
Passenger trains are energy efficient. Passenger trains are cost effective. Passenger trains will help alleviate congestion. Passenger trains, to the extent they are available, are a preferred mode of transportation. These things are all true, aren't they, and we accept these statement without question? In the 40+ years since the inception of Amtrak, people have started to question these self-evident truths. Maybe you disagree with their assumptions, maybe you question their numbers, but in these 40 years, people have started to "run some numbers" to question the assumptions underlying why we think passenger trains are a social good meritorious of a government subsidy.
I guess when a person vehemently denies that they are a "passenger train advocate" in the sense of seeking to influence public opinion in a positive direction to advance the available level of passenger train service, it is easy to post a laughing smiley face when discussing a person who comments on transportation policy and to be dismissive of who they are and what they stand for. I don't think that anyone who is serious about passenger trains has that luxury.
As to the charge that Mr. O'Toole is "an idealogue", Mr. O'Toole freely admits and discusses his idealogical perspective, that is, Libertarian and opposed to government planning and direction in markets of various kinds. But in that article, he reasons that were a person to support the idea of the government promoting passenger trains, the model that the UK has followed has much, much better outcomes in terms of increased passenger service and ridership than what we are doing in the U.S. Is this justification for calling him "an idealogue", dismissing everything and anything he has to say for being affiliated with the Cato Institute (one could say that we should dismiss anything said by someone who worked for the Federal Government as equally biased and idealogical in support of Federal involvement in transportation and trains?).
Randal O'Toole has a lot of critics. Critics say he distorts statistics, claims statistics that cannot be found and even uses incorrect statistics. For example, he is reported to have written that Amtrak passenger cars are 5/6 empty.
Here is a link to one critical essay about Mr. O'Toole: http://www.uppitywis.org/my-tea-party-randal-otoole
And from Joseph Henchman of the Tax Foundation: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/response-randal-otoole-road-funding
Randal O'Tool has definitely changed my opinion. I posted earlier that "privatization" so-called was a failure because the total cost to taxpayers increased. But if they are hauling lots lots more people, it is quite probable that those additional costs are far less than the costs of additional highway lanes and airports and runways that would otherwise have been needed. So, real privitization might have been better, and the word is might, what they did may very well have been good in the long run.
I have some more serious problems with British unions than discussed by Randal O'Toole!
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=8030
Randal O'toole the autoplanner offers an interesting perspective on it.
54light15 Maggie wanted to starve the railways and make everyone buy a car, thereby increasing employment in the car sector, the economy would improve and all the usual BS. I think she thought that everyone would rush right out and buy a new Austin, Morris, Wolseley, MG, Triumph,Humber, Riley, Alvis, Singer, Hillman, Sunbeam, Reliant, Bond, Marcos, AC, Lagonda, Gilbern or Bedford and the economy would just bloom! But they don't make those cars anymore.
Maggie wanted to starve the railways and make everyone buy a car, thereby increasing employment in the car sector, the economy would improve and all the usual BS. I think she thought that everyone would rush right out and buy a new Austin, Morris, Wolseley, MG, Triumph,Humber, Riley, Alvis, Singer, Hillman, Sunbeam, Reliant, Bond, Marcos, AC, Lagonda, Gilbern or Bedford and the economy would just bloom! But they don't make those cars anymore.
I did buy a succession of Triumph's - TR4a, TR250, TR6 & TR7. Two years after I bought the TR7 British Leyland went out of business. Too bad Maggie didn't work her 'magic' on Lucas Electrics.
I still have the TR7 34 years old and 56K miles, drive it with the top down in nice weather. Won several season championships when I competed with it in the sport of autocrossing.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Privatization was a way to have indebted nations pay off there bonds by the World Bank by forcing the sale of infrastructure to private interests. Did not work in S America and third word nations but increased the sale of moter veicals even if its was buses. Great Britain is barley paying the intrest on its debt . The way its working is that you never pay off the principle you forever pay the interest was the invention of Maggie Thatcher
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.