Subject:
|
Re: British railway industry (was Re: UK devolved government (was Harry Potter but who remembers that?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Sep 2001 18:15:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1334 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Bennett writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Bennett writes:
> My point was as set out below - You appear to be saying that by making a
> public asset private is not enough to privatize it, you also need to
> introduce competition. I think that's semantics.
I agree, inasmuch as we're talking about privatization in
practice, not theoretical Libertarian privatization, which
I would agree would function more effectively than the
half-assed privatization Railtrack represents (but, I would
also argue, would be inferior to public ownership in this
case).
> > Yes, I had personal experience of the operating companies. Lovely. Except
> > for certain plums like the train to Gatwick or Heathrow, you get one choice
> > and that is is.
>
> Heathrow Express is an interesting case. It shows what the real costs are
> as it is a fully private company with no subsidy and always has been and it
> charges £10 for a 15 minute journey. If this was replicated elsewhere I
> think the roads would lock up.
I agree. The path of least resistance is usually measured
monetarily--people expect taxes and consider them "uncontrollable
expenses," whereas they try to exert influence over voluntary
payments. If you doubt that, just look at the minor highways
and non-toll interstates in New Jersey compared to their toll
brethren around rush hour...and all the trucks, oi!
> Bit about what previous structure to return to:
> > Early 19thC.
>
> Right, I shall get back to you to cite why this didn't work then (How Lewis
> Carroll was able to joke in 'The Hunting of the Snark': 'They threatened
> its life with a railway share'!
I had totally forgotten about that line! Brilliant.
> > But in the
> > US we still have enough (freight) lines to get healthy competition in many
> > cases.
>
> You lucky people!
Add human haulage to the mix and there's much less competition.
NJ Transit is pretty much "it" for mass-transportation throughout
New Jersey. Fortunately, it works fairly well, and is usually on
time (and not too expensive--$13 r/t to NYC from most of NJ, and
55 minutes, compared to $12 plus parking and 1.5-2 hours each way
most of the time).
> > > I believe in competition except where there has to be only one set of
> > > infrastructure to avoid environmental or other problems. Roads, Railways
> > > and Electricity, Gas and cable telecommunications transmission (not
> > > generation or supply) are examples of this. I am constantly astonished that
> > > this is not only not self-evident but not even remotely recognized by so
> > > many others.
> >
> > I am not sure I am at all convinced of this and I've seen numerous studies
> > that argue that even "natural" monopolies can have competitive setups except
> > perhaps at the very last mile sections. Cable telecoms is a classic example.
> > *Everyone* is convinced that you should have only one in an area or city,
> > yet we have a few (not nearly enough, thanks to corrupt or inept governments
> > that won't allow competition) cities in the US that have several... guess
> > what? Better service, lower prices, more tax to the local munincipalities
> > and faster new features than the next town over where it's a monopoly.
It's also possible to create "virtual assets" that can be traded
or used as a proxy in an industry like, say, gas and electric.
While the actual power or pressure is given by a certain company's
facility, they "sell" that asset at wholesale to your provider.
Your provider does the same at plants they own. And so on, and so
forth--more b2b than actual doubling or trebling of infrastructure.
Theoretically it works well, so long as everyone plays fair (and
doesn't collude, or sign exclusionary regional contracts as has
happened with some cable service providers in the Midwest).
> Can you explain a little more? As a resident in this town would I have two
> or more sets of cables running past my house? (I'd be happy to see my cable
> company get a competitive kick up the khyber as they are still refusing to
> give me digital service because I want three decoders and they say that they
> can't do more than two to a house as the signal degrades. Hello! It's digital!)
See above. By the way, as an imperial historian, I'm tickled to
see the phrase "kick up the khyber." :) And they say that the
Afghans have never done anything for the English language...!
> Maybe in cable comms it could work but I do not want two sets of National
> Grid pylons striding across the landscape, I'm happy to pay for the
> privilege and I would be happy to legally prevent a company from building a
> second one.
See above. It's smoke and mirrors, in a sense--in part because
of environmental issues, but also because of the sheer cost of
the plant involved in adding redundant infrastructure.
> I think this boils down to: is it practical, affordable and environmentally
> sustainable to have significantly more infrastructure capacity than you need
> so that competition can happen. In Cable transmission, maybe. In
> electricity transmission, no. In Railways (in Britain), no.
I'd argue thus far that "Cable and electric, yes. Railways, no."
But that's only because I consider the kinks not to be worked out
sufficiently for a system as important as the UK's rails to be
tossed upon it. Now, the control of actual *stock* would be another
matter--isn't that analagous to the airlines being private
while the airports (usually) aren't? I'm on a limb on that last
one, so let me know if I'm off base with thinking most large
airports are publicly-owned.
By the way (and especially Larry), have you seen the recent story
about the push to build and maintain high-speed lines around the
US? Apparently Amtrak is miffed that they won't be given control
but will be allowed to "bid fairly" to run the new system or a part
thereof. I haven't seen how they're going to maintain the track
and associated assets, though.
> p.s. We're the only two discussing this, shall we knock it on the head, take
> it to email, or do you expect Lindsay to come back?
I'm here, and reading, but just really busy.
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: British railway industry
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: I agree, inasmuch as we're talking about privatization in (...) Except for, as I said, how do you incentivise the public sector to deliver value for taxpayers money? When BR knew it had the (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
