>First let's ask why does the government say that they want it when
>there actions say otherwise. I think they are appealing to a
>sentiment that says rail travel is an ecologically sound form of
>mass transportation while steadily rising car use is unsustainable.
>
>For myself, that seems like a bad argument. Increasing car use is
>not a tide that can be turned by the 'good intentions' of green
>utopians. It arises out of social changes that would be difficult -
>and wrong - to try to turn back. They are falling motor costs,
>rising incomes, more dispersed living and so on. Worse, the
>government's attitude is cynical, because it is really about
>hostility to cars, not a positive support for rail.
>
>And Jordan is right to draw the conclusion that the market for rail
>travel cannot sustain the kind of investment needed for a viable
>railway, leading to a spiralling decline in quality > passengers >
>investment > quality ...
So how much does Britain subsidize car travel, through public roads and highways, the traffic police and court systems, the socialization of pollution- and accident-related medical costs, etc. etc.?
Doug