3 ms·
The only people who are _for_ privatisation of railways are those wealthy enough that they don't need to use rail travel. Privatising public infrastructure is
by eertami 11y ago
The only people who are _for_ privatisation of railways are those wealthy enough that they don't need to use rail travel.
Privatising public infrastructure is absurd, especially when you exactly build an adjacent railway line to compete.
- afsina 11y agoPrivatizing public infrastructure is not absurd. They just get the management from government's hands with the promise that they can do it with more efficiently. Even if it is far from perfect, they do a better job. Just anecdotal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail#Impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail#...
- ctz 11y agoDid you read the link you posted? Because it covered the major mismanagement which killed four people and directly resulted in renationalisation of UK rail infrastructure. It's also worth noting that, for the UK rail system, most passenger operators are actually owned by public operators from other countries (like DB with their Arriva brand, NS with Abellio, etc.).
- afsina 11y agoUnfortunately accidents happen, there are much bigger accidents happened in complete public rails. But if you check the measures , overall safety has been increased a great deal, actually it is considered as the safest in Europe, And for most accounts there are improvements (Customer satisfaction is up, Level of traffic is up, Fare increases are lower than before, Average train age unchanged, Punctuality unchanged, Safety is increased, Efficiency is up) ). If it would be a real privatization, chances that it would be better.