> public transport ... would be the cheapest and most effective in Europe.
While that is generally the argument, I wouldn't expect it to hold when governments remove subsidies as is often the case with regulated transport systems. The argument is actually one of efficiency.
I had a great argument with someone one time on the classic subject of deregulating roads. The interlocutor made a point that I initially struggled with - that without subsidies there probably wouldn't be many roads. After a bit of reflection it became obvious that in a free market where land was worth a lot of money, the market wouldn't put roads on it. Because of government subsidies, roads were being overbuilt beyond what actually makes sense (denser cities where people can walk from place to place are actually pretty livable). So in the case of deregulating transport higher prices isn't the end of it. If you remove a subsidy, there will be less of a thing. The question is why is that bad? If subsidies were good without drawbacks, we'd subsidise everything.
And land is a famous special case; there should be a land tax to weed out people trying to make money from owning undeveloped land.
I enjoyed reading your comment but didn't wholly agree with this bit:
> If subsidies were good without drawbacks, we'd subsidise everything.
Many voters are sensitive to what they perceive as wasteful use of public funds, so your claim only makes sense in a sort of idealized, platonic dictatorship. Admittedly, governments do waste funds occasionally so the concerns are not necessarily baseless. However I can easily see a government choosing not to subsidize a 'perfect' project simply because they want to appear frugal to voters - after all, that is a significant reason why the UK has had so many austerity policies that have slowed public investment.
> And land is a famous special case; there should be a land tax to weed out people trying to make money from owning undeveloped land.
Henry George, is that you? I can certainly get behind that argument!
While that is generally the argument, I wouldn't expect it to hold when governments remove subsidies as is often the case with regulated transport systems. The argument is actually one of efficiency.
I had a great argument with someone one time on the classic subject of deregulating roads. The interlocutor made a point that I initially struggled with - that without subsidies there probably wouldn't be many roads. After a bit of reflection it became obvious that in a free market where land was worth a lot of money, the market wouldn't put roads on it. Because of government subsidies, roads were being overbuilt beyond what actually makes sense (denser cities where people can walk from place to place are actually pretty livable). So in the case of deregulating transport higher prices isn't the end of it. If you remove a subsidy, there will be less of a thing. The question is why is that bad? If subsidies were good without drawbacks, we'd subsidise everything.
And land is a famous special case; there should be a land tax to weed out people trying to make money from owning undeveloped land.