Sounds sensible... Still unsure of your linkage between an aborrence of subsidy and ownership of railways though!Joby wrote: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.newcomer wrote: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).Joby wrote: 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).