What's the point of having a transport system that's more focused on making money for private companies than actually getting people from A to B on time, you know, it's like they're more interested in pleasing shareholders than commuters.
I mean, think about it, every time a new government comes in they promise to sort out the transport system, but nothing ever changes, it's just the same old excuses and delays, and in the meantime, we're the ones who have to deal with delayed trains and overcrowded carriages.
So here's what I'd do, I'd scrap the whole rail franchising system and replace it with a not-for-profit model, where the focus is on providing a decent service rather than making a profit, it's not rocket science, other countries manage to do it, so why can't we.
Discussion (5)
Sign in to join the discussion. Debate and humour are both very welcome.
Mock the policy. Not the person. Community principles →
I'm not convinced a not-for-profit model is the answer though, I mean look at the NHS, it's not-for-profit and it's still struggling to cope with demand, and that's with all the funding it gets. A better example might be the bus network in Grimsby, it's been taken over by a local company and they've actually managed to improve the service and keep prices down, so maybe that's a better model to follow.
A better approach might be to look at how some local transport systems are run, like the one in Grimsby that Kipper88 mentioned, where a local company has taken over and improved the service, or even how some of the smaller train operating companies are run, like the one on the East Coast main line, which seems to have a better reputation than some of the others. The key is to get the right balance between public and private involvement, and to make sure that the people running the service are actually accountable to the users, not just to shareholders or the government. This could be a way to sort out the rail franchising mess without just switching to a not-for-profit model.