Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
Not really. The tracks can only take so many trains, so one more operator just pushes other trains off the track. Which might be fine if it meant that the trains that did run were hyper-competitive. But they're not, because the train companies tend to get a near monopoly on a particular kind of service (fast trains vs stopping trains, for example). And if there are two companies running the same service, you'll only have half as many trains to choose from for the return journey. It's a ridiculous thing.
I should point out that I am speaking from the UK, which privatised its trains with indecent haste and far more destructive enthusiasm than many other EU countries. But EU-required rail privatisation is a fucking disaster. It makes no sense.
Public transport is best run as a monopoly and is too vital a part of economic infrastructure to leave in the hands of idle shareholders.
You're wrong. First of all, competition does work in Europe. Second - all railways in the UK are 100% nationalised. And that's why they suck so hard.
UK railways are nationalised? Are you from 25 years in the past, or 5 years in the future?
They are 100% nationalised since 1940-s. The government has full control over infrastructure, fares, stock, routes and literally everything else.
In the UK, as in the United Kingdom? Our railways were privatised in 1997. They've become so bad, there is talk of renationalising them.
Technically, some of our railways are owned by the governments of other countries (I think France and Germany amongst others) - but not our own.
They are 100% owned by the British government. There's nothing privatised in the UK and never was. And that's why they suck so hard.
As for German involvement - the British government just outsourced day to day operations to Germans and others. Just like they outsource No. 10 floor wiping. That doesn't mean that No. 10 is privatised. It's the choice of the government and that's how they decided to spend their budget.
I mean... it's literally not - we obviously have some fundamental misunderstanding between us and neither of is going to get our point across to the other, so I'll simply agree "The railways are currently shittier than they should be" :)
Not sure how there can be any misunderstanding. It's just a fact that British railways are nationalised. It is also quite obvious that privatisation and deregulation works really well as we have a good example from the EU and Japan. Oh, speaking of EU, this privatisation and deregulation was one of the key points for many Labour voters to support Brexit.
I'm not sure either! British Rail was literally, factually privatised and sold off to a lot of different private companies, over a few years running up until 1997. It has not been re-nationalised since. I can't understand how you wouldn't be aware of that, unless your view on what nationalised and privatised means is different than the news/dictionary/encyclopaedia/anyone else.
The railways were nationalised between 1948 and 1997, but it's currently 2023 - and unless you're from a parallel universe where Neil Kinnock won, they haven't been nationalised for two and a half decades now.
Worth taking statistics with a pinch of salt, but apparently after a couple of decades of underperforming privatised service, the UK population is overwhelmingly (across both sides of the political spectrum) in support of re-nationalising the railways.
Who sets the fares? The government (through DfT).
Who owns the infrastructure? The government (through Network Rail).
Who decides which routes to run and how? The government (through Rail Delivery Group).
Who is managing the ticketing? The government (through Rail Delivery Group).
Who decides which companies to hire to run day to day operations and how much to pay them? The government (through DfT).
What is privatised exactly? Once again, British railways are 100% nationalised. This is just a fact. And this is the only reason why they are so poor. The so called "privatisation" never really happened, what happened is that the government created a scapegoat to blame all their failures on. And they stole a lot of tax payer money along the way. Just like it ALWAYS happens with nationalised industries.
Network Rail profits are at least to some extent nationalised, so have to be used for railway reinvestment instead of shareholders, yes - and therefore additionally that means indirectly, the government kind of have some representation in the Rail Delivery Group, amongst the privately owned operators that make up the rest of it.
Some of the fares (not all), or at least their rises each year, are regulated by the government, the rest are set by the individual companies.
The privatisation is the ownership of the trains, the stations, the staff, the companies that run them, and the investment of profits - now I know some of the companies have had to be individually renationalised as a "company of last resort" after they've failed, but that's only in the last couple of years - there's been over 20 years of profits going to shareholders and not being used to improve the railway - which is why at commuter hours, you still, in 2023, have 400 people trying to get onto a 35 year old, 2 carriage Sprinter - despite the billions each year paid from public money. Like with the energy companies, we're playing "private profits and public losses".
I sort of get how you could see regulations/guidance/controls as being a bit like "they own it all", but I'd assume you don't see all British pubs as nationalised, despite the fact that (local or national) government controls whether a pub is allowed to exist in that location, who is allowed to run it, what the opening hours are allowed to be, what the minimum price of an alcohol unit can be, the sizes of single servings of different types of alcoholic drink etc etc.
Anyway, if you perceive regulation as nationalisation, we'll never agree or even reach a middle ground of understanding on that term specifically, though would both agree "What they have currently is not as good as it could be" - and I imagine we both agree that the railways are important, are an essential alternative to individual car travel and desperately need some support and investment to improve.
I don't think I can spend any longer talking about this, but thanks - it's been interesting to see a different point of view :)
It was an interesting, err, "conversation" I guess, but I am starting to see that the disagreement is based in the fact that you are viewing things through a particular lens.