Jon has moved ! wrote:
> On 15 Aug, 11:29, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> Again, Australian PT spin, which is irrelevant here. In the UK, the
>> revenue in 2004/05 from _just_ VED and fuel duty (excluding VAT)
>> was £27.5 billion. Total expenditure on roads 2004/05 was £6 billion.
>
> And again, you ignore the fact that your comparative figures assume
> that the cost of the road network and motorised transport starts and
> ends with road construction and maintenance.
No I don't. I was replying to a specific statement offered as
"evidence" by the PP, namely: "Myth: Motorists pay more in taxes and
fees than is spent on roads", and showing that they do indeed, in the UK
at least.
(However, you also raise an interesting aside which I'll respond to
when/if I get time later).
>> In the UK this year, rail fares paid for about half the cost of
>> providing the service, the other £4.5 billion came from government
>> subsidy.[1]
>>
>> [1] <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2134298.ece>
>
> Fascinating, but only a part of the story as
>
> http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2006/12/stagecoach_bungs_400_million_t.html
>
> demonstrates. If the current "profits" in the rail system were put
> back into it (as to some extent the "profits" from the road network
> are), then comparisons would be fairer.
Much of that profit will have been made from using publicly provided
infrastructure, for which they do not pay a commercial rate to use - the
bus lanes, bus shelters, bus stations, bus stops, for example.
How much of their profit do you think that bus companies and road
haulage companies invest back into the road system upon which they rely?
> Perhaps you'd like to see a
> privatised road network where a significant proportion of the revenue
> generated by road usage (in all forms) was channelled straight into
> the pockets of investors.
Yes, certainly. That way, as in most other competitive service
provision situations, we'd get customer satisfaction, and customer
requirements at the top of the agenda. Why? Because the profits of
their investors would rely on it. That is how business works. Compare
the variety and the competition in the phone services business now, and
how it was under the GPO! What about road haulage - would you return us
to the halcyon days of BRS? What about British Leyland, British Gas,
British Railways? All beacons of efficiency, customer satisfaction,
quality and profitability??? What we need is less, not more public and
political control of our roads, and our railways. The railways will
probably never recover from the neglect and under investment they
suffered at the hands of the "British Railways Board" and British Rail.
Imagine if motorway provision had been left to private enterprise,
and, as with the railway industry in its heyday, competition was rife.
We just might have the network we deserve now.
> I am a supporter of "appropriate travel".
Would you support the oppression of free-choice if it resulted in what
you might judge to be "inappropriate travel"?
> To go to the local shops I
> either walk or cycle. If I need to be in town for an event that
> requires me to be on foot, I catch the local train. If I need to move
> a large and or heavy item, I hire a van. If I need to travel to
> another part of the country, I take the train. My transport mode
> changes because my requirements change.
Well done ;-) All your choice, and made with due consideration of your
own circumstances.
> I do this because I value my
> time and have no desire to waste it...
Exactly the same reasons that most people despise public transport.
> and because I live in a country
> where the concept of PT is that it should work and provide a viable
> alternative.
Where is that then?
> Because I don't insist on driving everywhere, I leave
> more space on the roads for those who have no choice.
Do you use the same rationale when you use the telephone, or when you
use your bicycle, or when you use public transport - don't use it in
case it shows up a deficiency in supply?
> This works for
> both of us. It is known as an informed choice.
It is your filter on, and your view of, the "information" required, and
its interpretation, in making that choice. Allow others to use theirs,
and do not presume to judge them against yours.
> An ill-informed choice
> is no choice at all.
As is a forced "choice", based on the politics, prejudices, and
ignorance of others. My favourite colour is blue - am I to condemn
those who choose red?
> You sir... are ill-informed.
No, I support _free_ choice, based on one's own criteria.
--
Matt B
