c) is definitely the lesser of evils. Renationalisation would be an expensive disaster; while a complete free for all would lead to chaos on the roads and economic disaster for many remote regions
I still don't get it. Are these services busy or not? If busy, why would you close them? If not, why would the small number of displaced passengers cause overcrowding on the roads? How many buses would it take to carry the passengers from a service that was so under-utilised that it was uneconomic?
Comments
Railways
c) is definitely the lesser of evils. Renationalisation would be an expensive disaster; while a complete free for all would lead to chaos on the roads and economic disaster for many remote regions
Why?
Why would "a complete free for all lead to chaos on the roads and economic disaster for many remote regions"?
By: i) switching passengers
By:
i) switching passengers from rail to overcrowded roads;
ii) By removing "uneconomic" services to remote regions without taking into account the wider economic and social consequences.
Are these threatened routes too busy or too quiet?
I still don't get it. Are these services busy or not? If busy, why would you close them? If not, why would the small number of displaced passengers cause overcrowding on the roads? How many buses would it take to carry the passengers from a service that was so under-utilised that it was uneconomic?