In article , David Fairthorne
wrote:

"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
It was announced on today's BBC(East) TV news that train traffic from
Cambridge to London) is up 75% in ten years (or at least we were allowed
to
ASSUME it was train and not road, and NOT London to Cambridge. Some
questions
:-

* WHY has this happened?
Natural traffic growth?
Special efforts made to promote growth?
People in Cambridge getting jobs in Londom ? or
Londoners moving to Cambridge, but keeping their London jobs?
How much subsidy was involved?

* Is this a good thing?
Does it contribute to the general good?
The London economy, and hence the whole country?
The Cambridge economy? and hence the whole country?
What INSTITUTIONS have benefitted from this?
How have PEOPLE benefitted from this?
Is it a good thing for people to travel more? The Greens would say
NO.
Is it a good thing for people to spend so much time travelling? or
Could their time be better spent doing other things?


Michael Bell

--


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.

This probably sounds like heresy, but I would like all forms of transport,
public and private, land, sea and air, to be self-supporting, and to be
taxed in proportion to the damage that they do to the environment.

David Fairthorne

You're a brave man! You will get streams of denunciations for this.

I might have mentioned it earlier, but Kings Lynn council paid (whether in
whole or only in part, I do not know) for the Cambridge electrification to be
extended to Kings Lynn. There may be many views on this, but one thing can be
said for it, they put THEIR OWN MONEY where their mouth was, rather than
calling for other people's money to be spent for them.

Michael Bell

--