"Boltar" wrote in message
m
Isn't it funny though how cost is never an issue with road or airport
projects?
Couple of billion for an airport extension? No problem. 97M for a rail
extension? cue lots of teeth sucking.
Its only rail where the books seem to have to balance to the last
penny and
future growth is never taken into account. The only exception to this
seems to
have been the CTRL, but that was probably due to avoiding political
humiliation
in front of the french more than anything else.

True, but in the case of airports, it won't be the government paying. For
example, if Stansted does get a new runway, BAA will pay, not the
government. All the government has to do is to "bless" the project, not pay
for it. Unfortunately, the railways aren't profitable enough to do this.

Even with roads, there are now few big government-funded new roads projects,
and that's despite the huge surplus on vehicle and petrol taxes. Even
allowing for the cost of building and maintaining roads, I assume the
government makes a big net profit on them, quite unlike the railways.

As for the argument that air travel is subsidised through getting tax-free
fuel, isn't the same true of the railways? And rail passengers are
subsidised on most journeys, unlike air travellers who have to pay a tax on
every journey.