Home
The Blog
Transport Blog
Wiki
All pages
CATEGORIES
Economics
Trade
Environment
General
Health
Media
Immigration
Housing and Planning
Rail
Roads
Safety
Ulster
I am against state subsidy for railways (for the purpose of keeping them open) because:
- I am against subsidy in general
- it leads to unintended consequences
What are these unintended consequences?
- You get some pretty absurd lines and services being subsidised.
- It may make the poorest worse off.
You talk about “absurd situations”?
- In the case of the UK many subsidised services are virtually empty and the stations virtually deserted.
And, the possibility that it makes the poorest worse off.
- Yes, see here.
But without subsidy many lines would have to close.
- I agree, many lines would indeed close.
Don’t some people need these lines to get to work?
- In all probability, yes. But why should the rest of us pay for their train journeys?
But what about network effects? Don’t you need the rural ie subsidised lines to keep the bigger ones going?
- This is something that is often mentioned in relation to the Beeching Cuts. BR cut the lines but not the losses. Ergo, cutting lines doesn’t save money. The explanation being that the unprofitable lines provide passengers that make the profitable lines profitable. What is never considered is that British Rail might have been becoming even less profitable over the period of the cuts and might have lost even more money had they not gone ahead.
I also find it interesting to note that the network was definitely not necessary when the process was in reverse ie when the railway was being built in the first place. Then the pattern was to build the lines linking the major cities first (making profits on the way) and then branch out.
OK then, but what about the need for workers to get to work?
- The argument (such as I have heard) is that (typically) the unemployed live in one area while the jobs are being created in another, so we need to subsidise the lines that will get them to the jobs. I always find this argument rather odd. Why is it that in the 19th Century workers had almost no trouble following the jobs but now (in much richer times) they do?
And your answer?
- Well, I’m not quite sure but I suspect council housing and planning have their part to play. Council housing because if you move you lose your house with no immediate prospect of getting another one. Planning, because it prevents housing being built where people want to live. So, the answer is to abolish planning and council housing.
But won’t we need these lines when we have to conserve energy to prevent climate change?
- Assuming climate change is happening, and that it is a bad thing and that it is worth our while doing something… then, very possibly we will want more rail lines. In which case the answer, presumably, would be to build some more.
Actually, the way I see it, the mechanism will be that the polluters will pay the victims. This will make polluting activity more expensive and (possibly) give rail a competitive advantage.
But, surely, it would be cheaper to keep the lines open rather than let them close and then find that you have to re-open them all over again.
- Possibly. But if that were the case then it would presumably be worth someone’s while buying them up in the expectation of them being valuable in the future. But even if that is the case in some cases I very much doubt if would be the case for lines like the North Scotland line.
Nothing yet but you never know...