London Banter - View Single Post

[email protected] · May 13th 16, 02:06 PM posted to uk.transport.london

On Fri, 13 May 2016 13:20:35 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:23:51 on Fri, 13 May
2016, d remarked:

Besides like hundreds of miles of other line it had closed before he
was appointed though people always seem to blame Beeching for them.

I always wonder what people would have thought of Beeching had he
recommended an insufficient number of cuts and BR was then forced into
the equivalent of receivership with only the Intercity lines (and a few
commuter services on the same rails) surviving.

Thats a bit like saying the Highways Agency would go into receivership because
the roads cost too much to repair. The only difference is governments are
happy to throw money at roads but not rail even though both bring massive
2ndary economic benefits.

I don't think it's at all like the roads, because the mobility provided
by mass car usage also gathers a vast amount of tax. The problem (and
still is) with railways is they don't pay their way, and there has to
come a point when if the subsidy becomes unsustainable that governments
back in the day would have had no option but to pull the plug.

I doubt roads pay their way either even after road and fuel tax have been
taken into account. The M25 widening alone is costing over £100 million a year.
But the fact that roads bring economic benefits is a given as far as
governments are concerned - railways however they seem to think are a
nice-to-have even though in the major cities they're probably the 1st or 2nd
most popular method of commuting.

--
Spud