Sounds sensible... Still unsure of your linkage between an aborrence of subsidy and ownership of railways though!
I'm not sure I ever said I abhor subsidy - I think that was someone else. I see public services on a scale, with essential services such as fire, police, health etc. at one end rightly receiving high levels of funding, and non-essential services such as 5-a-side football pitches, swimming pools etc. at the other receiving low or no funding, instead being financed by the people who use them. It's quite black and white at each end of my scale, but rather grey in the middle (which is probably where railways resides... 
)Statistics:Posted by Joby — Thu 22 May, 2014 4:40 pm
]]>
I don't have one. But...perhaps run as (government or privately-owned) NPOs where profit is fed back into improving the service rather than to shareholders. And in a feeble attempt to keep this on-topic, maybe car parks should be based on a similar model.What is your plan for running a service that can't have any effective competition? (and arguably, the real problem, can never be profitable but is considered a public good economically).Same reason I don't support re-nationalising railways, as I don't think it's fair for non-train travellers to subsidise rail travel.
In another feeble attempt to keep this on-topic. If you cut all subsidy and let the prices reach it's level in the market, prices (2-3x now) would be just be too expensive for most people, and then the whole thing would become uneconomic and at some point you would lose the important public benefits (reducing congestion, mobile workforce, etc.). I suggest something similar could happen with carparks where the drop in footfall caused by higher prices would effect the local economy (before it effect the profits of the car park overly).
Statistics:Posted by newcomer — Thu 22 May, 2014 3:30 pm
]]>
]]>
What is your plan for running a service that can't have any effective competition? (and arguably, the real problem, can never be profitable but is considered a public good economically).Same reason I don't support re-nationalising railways, as I don't think it's fair for non-train travellers to subsidise rail travel.
Statistics:Posted by Joby — Thu 22 May, 2014 10:42 am
]]>
Same reason I don't support re-nationalising railways, as I don't think it's fair for non-train travellers to subsidise rail travel.
OK, I'll bite (sorry Admin).We are now subsidising the railways much more now than we did before it was privatised.
The EastCoast Line, currently publically owned is now returning a lot more money to the government than its private predecessor did.
What is your plan for running a service that can't have any effective competition? (and arguably, the real problem, can never be profitable but is considered a public good economically).
Statistics:Posted by newcomer — Thu 22 May, 2014 9:54 am
]]>
Yes. But there's no evidence that subsidising parking boosts the economy.
No direct evidence but I choose to go places where it is easy to park. In fact I would rather pay and have an empty car park than go to a full car park. Which kind of defeats my own argument here.OK, I admit it, I will activiely choose to go places and spend my money where it is easy to park. I would rather pay a pound and have an easy parking space rather than stressing to find a free space. However this argument goes out the window as parking prices rise.
At the moment I choose to go to out of town places on a Sunday as parking easier and less crowds. For the evening, we tend to go to country pubs as a couple/family but for friends we go in town.
Statistics:Posted by Kateg28 — Thu 22 May, 2014 8:45 am
]]>
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Ci ... 022013.htm" target="_blank
Statistics:Posted by james — Thu 22 May, 2014 8:42 am
]]>
I've noted before that Bishops Stortford seems to have councillors in powerful positions and believe that the results of that is being seen in the town - some of our councillors on EHDC need to stand up for Hertford!!
Statistics:Posted by Golden — Thu 22 May, 2014 8:40 am
]]>
]]>
]]>
The full report from the DfT concludes that motorists are subsidised to the tune of £9.6 billion.
http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as ... -motoring/" target="_blank
There was another report that shows motorists are subsidised to the tune of €600 by each EU citizen.
Car pollution, noise and accidents 'cost every EU citizen £600 a year.
http://gu.com/p/3cktg" target="_blank
Statistics:Posted by james — Wed 21 May, 2014 11:35 pm
]]>
In response to James.
No to subsidy
Yes to fuel duty bring increased to cover cost of roads etc. although at 475 a year my RFL probably does that.
IMHO, there shouldn't be road tax but the cost of fixing and making new roads should be part of the cost of fuel. It might help to keep the roads quieter as well.
Total government spending on roads 2011-12 = £7.7bnNo to subsidy
Yes to fuel duty bring increased to cover cost of roads etc. although at 475 a year my RFL probably does that.
IMHO, there shouldn't be road tax but the cost of fixing and making new roads should be part of the cost of fuel. It might help to keep the roads quieter as well.
Taxes collected from motorists 2011-12 = £58bn
Source: http://www.roadusers.org.uk/chapters/in ... nvestments" target="_blank
Statistics:Posted by Steve — Wed 21 May, 2014 8:13 pm
]]>
]]>
No to subsidy
Yes to fuel duty bring increased to cover cost of roads etc. although at 475 a year my RFL probably does that.
IMHO, there shouldn't be road tax but the cost of fixing and making new roads should be part of the cost of fuel. It might help to keep the roads quieter as well.
Statistics:Posted by MultiDad — Wed 21 May, 2014 7:21 pm
]]>
]]>