With fuel prices rising why isn't the government subsidising rail travel?

Question

Instead they are letting the rail network increase the fares.

Surely if they reduced fares it would get more cars off the road saving fuel and pollution

Answer 1

Nice idea, but where would you get the tax to pay for this? More tax on motorists perhaps?

Answer 2

Why, because that would reduce the profits being made by the oil companies.

Congress will NEVER act to even marginally hurt the organizations that funded their election/re-election campaigns.

Answer 3

That's a good one, subsidising rail networks, i can see that going down well with the owners and their shareholders.

And it doesn't because half the problem is going by train is often a load of hassle, take it from one who knows. Visiting my mother takes a walk, two trains, and a cab at the other end, and it not that far away. If i could drive i would.

Answer 4

because we have useless goverment, who don't think aboutthe real importances

Answer 5

It is. Rail Network have had billions in government subsidies:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2004/...

Answer 6

good question

bus fares are crippling too , its cheaper to get a taxi if there are a few of you

the real answer is the goverment dont actually give a flying one about polution carbon footprint or peoples safety they just want our dosh

Answer 7

Railways get Millions as it is without more Cheaper fares  Peterborough =Birmingham  6 quid   god you will soon want tobe paid to travel  better idea  you get employment near to home  or move home tobe by your place of work..but if you are talking in terms of leisure travel ..pay for your pleasures

Answer 8

that's a good question and a good solution for politics you should become a MP

Answer 9

idk those ppl are so tarded it aint even funny.

Answer 10

Are you in England or the US? Actually in the US, Amtrak is already partially subsidized. They rely on government funding to keep running. A lot of things keep Amtrak from being everything it could be. They have to share rail lines with freight train companies who own the lines and they have to pay for the use of those lines. Since they share the lines, they often have to wait on a side track for the freight trains to clear the line, making them frequently late. They have a pretty powerful union of workers than demand a living wage. A catch-22 because they should be paid the same as the airlines but in this case, it's crippling the company. It costs about twice as much as air fare at this point and the schedule is unreliable. You have to live on or close to a major city on a route for it to be of any use.

In spite of all this, I think trains are a great way to travel. One of the coolest experiences of my life was taking the Coast Starlight route along the California coast, sleeping in a sleeper car cabin, eating meals in the dining car. There's nothing like it. It's a very relaxed way to travel as long as you're flexible about when you get there.

Answer 11

One simple answer...Privatisation.

Answer 12

Congress provided Amtrak with a subsidy of $1.294 billion,  for FY 2007 They continue to subsidize them. If they had no subsidy they would have failed 30 years ago. Here in Massachusetts the MBTA is run by the state but continue to raise fares because the state couldn't balance a ball never mind a budget.

Answer 13

The railways r private companies now. They r not owned by the government and have shareholders to answer to.

Answer 14

Rail companies are privately owned. Do you want the government to subsidise your life-style?

Answer 15

Who would pay for it? Would they oil companies be willing or is this another burden on the taxpayer?

Answer 16

well I dont know about subsidising it but...if you are wanting to travel across country....how do you find cost the schedules...and how close they go to where you want to go.  The railroads were at one time our first method of across country travel.... dont count on it now.

Answer 17

Very good question.... but u know the govt.. dont know what they are doing... too busy sendin more money to the war in Iraq..  I saw a headline that they had been approved to billions of more money for the war... that money could be spent here in USA for many other things....