In article , Jonn Elledge
wrote:

"David Fairthorne" wrote in message
...

It seems to be widely accepted that public transport must be subsidised,
but subsidies modify peoples' behaviour, and in this example, and many
others, the consequences are not altogether desirable.


Perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree with this completely.

Like public education and the military, public transport is an important
form of social overhead capital. Many people may not benefit from the
subsidies directly. But if rail travel was priced at cost, then commuting
would for many become impossible. Cities would become overcrowded both with
traffic and people needing to live closer to their jobs, and wider economic
growth would probably be impaired. While it's possible to debate the amount
of public funding required for transport, I'm personally happy to pay a
little out of my taxes to ensure we can all get about.

Jonn

This is certainly one of the aspects I am interested in. Markets are
supposed to reach an "equilibrium" or "steady state" where the various
trade-offs balance. Why should city size not be allowed to reach equilibrium
as result of such market forces? If we cancel out the constraints on the size
of London by giving "London weighting", then London can grow to absorb the
whole population of the country, and indeed the world. Is this what we want?
Of course, a lot depends on where the money comes from. I see no harm, and a
lot of benefit, in a city deciding to spend money on itself, its roads, its
theatres, its police, its transport system, etc. It's when a city levies a
tax on the country as a whole to pay for its services that a distortion of
the market happens. Are the results good?

Michael Bell


--