Huge wrote:
"Jonn Elledge" writes:

"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.

Thameslink make a profit. Ergo your asserion is incorrect.


Well, no, actually. I wasn't saying that no railway can ever be
profitable - I was saying that not all railways are profitable, but the
fact that a railway isn't profitable does not mean it doesn't add
value. Thameslink is a notoriously busy line - there are many emptier
lines that may not be profitable, but the removal of which could have
negative economic and social consequences.

Jonn