beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,018
why not state run taxis instead of rail for transport?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] UK rail fares to rise by 3.2%
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
why not state run taxis instead of rail for transport?
A line has to be drawn somewhere and taxis seem a step too far.
nicko31
Well-known member
Its been poor, you hardly ever get a seat. Cross rail will make things a lot better
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,018
i agree with that, though funny how these lines are drawn at arbitrary points without a lot of consideration why. in the past the rail was the only available form of medium-long distance transportation, so it was built, people used it and its stuck. in the not so distant future a fleet of self-driving vehicles would be viable and probably more efficient. do we move the line or just stick to the old Victorian system? seems odd how we accept even champion a select part of transport for public subsidy, dismissing other forms that the majority use.
Ditto. Or I go by bus. I bought a car in 2016 when the railways became too unreliable (not interested in whose fault it was) and commuting by train became way too stressful. First time I've regularly commuted by car since about 1994. I've changed jobs since then, but I made sure my new one was driveable. All things being equal I'll never have to commute by train again for the rest of my working life - although I'll review that if they re-open the line to Uckfield!
I wouldn’t say my line is arbitrary nor stuck on Victorian values. It’s based mainly on the current balance of the environment, congestion and cost. Buses, trams and rail seems to win out over taxis.
Tram or bicycle. I only work 2 miles from home though.
I've just paid £13.20 for a day return from Arundel to Billingshurst, a 28 mile return journey. Working on my car costing around 30p per mile to run and insure etc it would have cost me £8.40 to drive door-to-door, rail fairs need to decrease to entice people out of their cars
18 miles for me, but I'd love a tram from Brighton to Uckfield! You always know when there's a cyclist on the A26 as the traffic queues up behind them. Despite the fact it's classified as an 'A' road it's little more than a glorified country lane with heavy traffic in both directions, consequently it's hard to overtake a cyclist so you have to wait for a gap in the oncoming traffic. Hard for cars, virtually impossible for buses who need bigger gaps obviously. When I'm on the bus we often have to crawl behind a cyclist for several miles until either a big enough gap presents itself or the cyclist realises they're an obstruction and lets everybody past.
Anyway, I digress. Probably better on one of Stat Brother's cycling threads!
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,886
Being owned by the state is different to being funded by the state.
You said previously on this thread that you put your money where your mouth is by living in Germany and you were happy to pay more tax for state run services like the rail.
I’m sorry to piss on your kartoffelknodel, but DB is not funded by the German taxpayer but capitalist investors via bond issuance.
Give Robert Strehl (Head of DB Investor Relations) a call on 49 30 297 64030 a call and ask him if DB is nationalised, he will tell you that youre a dumpkopf talking shisse.
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 4,080
And the whole idea of something being privatised is that those that use it pay for it...
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 4,080
Are the Government going to pay for my car in the countryside then? Or is it just the transport that suits some?
And why do you believe those things? For example, why with so many available channels for entertainment and news should the BBC be state funded? Why should train travel be state funded and to the benefit of a small percentage of the population, but not car travel for those who don't have the benefit of train access to their desired locations?
No they won’t pay for your car.
And I’m sure you can figure out why I believe these things. My beliefs, and the reasons behind my beliefs, are quite common.
Turning the question on you, why should city dwellers, and the people of London especially, subsidise you in the countryside? It’s well known the countryside doesn’t pay for itself from resident’s taxes but needs a hefty top up from central funds. Why should we pay for the small percentage who live in the sticks?
Last edited:
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 4,080
And I don't want to pay for your train travel. I'm sure you understand why.
Oh I can figure out the logic. In the same way I'm sure you can figure out the logic around many disagreeing with everything being state owned. Those beliefs, after all, are also very common.
I’m sure you’re a principled person, so you will be happy handing back all the money you and your village ponces off us city dwellers then?
PS I didn’t say everything should be state owned.
deletebeepbeepbeep
Well-known member
- May 12, 2009
- 21,799
If we were going to nationalise a transport industry I would sooner nationalise the bus network, expensive and poor quality bus provision hits the worse off and disconnected far greater than trains.
sussex_guy2k2
Well-known member
- Jun 6, 2014
- 4,080
You've clearly not lived in many villages/rural areas in the UK. Such areas are often pretty damned scarce as far as resources and state input are concerned. If we have a GP we count ourselves lucky.
And no you didn't. You just seem to be implying that your standpoint is more principled/moral than mine. And that's utter guff and you'll know that if you have anything about you.
P.S. I got that. I figured we were discussing things that you consider to be "basic human needs"... even if you did include the BBC in that. I'll choose my words (or write you a list) more carefully next time so you aren't confused about my point.
I’ve not lived in any villages or rural areas. I can’t be part of the metropolitan liberal elite and live like that can I?
Raleigh Chopper
New member
Yes that is right.
British Rail was easy pickings to take the piss out of including their sandwiches and a few strikes but I commuted and used trains a lot at that time, the trains were a bit ricketty but they were very punctual and I do not remember very many signal failures or cancelled trains due to lack of staff
In the last 10 years of BR it was so good that it made it ripe for privatisation.
People have short memories.