Subsidising The Railways

[AB Editor]

 

This poll is closed.

Should the government subsidise the railway companies?

A. Yes

53.33% (56 votes)

B. No

46.67% (49 votes)

See final stats

Stats until: 09:51 Thu 20th Jun 2013 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)

© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2013. All Rights Reserved.

[TWR]

I think it's about time they started spending on the roads, the amount of pot holes that are about, they take enough off us.

[Coldicote]

Subsidising the railways would probably cause as many problems as it would solve. I see no practicable half-way measure between nationalisation and private ownership.

[Old_Geezer]

If the government uses our money to pay for their friends' investments in the railway industry, then we are just being used to line the pockets of the politicians' friends. The track company should be charging the service providers enough such that they have the finance to do their own investment, not give them cut rates and then plead poverty. If the railways are not a commercially viable business, and it seems that may be the case, then the government had no business selling off our assets. We can fund our own nationalised services without being forced to make the rich richer on top.

[mushroom25]

almost 95% of everything - freight or people - goes by road, however with the exception of motorways and some dual carriageways, the UK road network is little more than a collection of access roads never intended for today's level of usage.

if roads were properly managed to avoid congestion, they would offer 3 to 4 times the capacity to move freight and people at one quarter the cost of rail, while using 20% to 25% less energy and reducing casualty costs suffered by rail passengers by a factor of 2.

the solution is a bit of a no-brainer really.

[ABerrant]

Before even considering such a move, the present subsidy to Network Rail is, in real terms, greater than the subsidy provided to British Rail before privatisation.

http://fullfact.org/f..._nationalisation-3391