FSP 1.1

trainspotting

the railways have always been
more or less cash-strapped since the 1920's, and often selling off
property was the only way to raise cash (it was not until recently
that the railways won the right to DEVELOP their own property, so they
could use the income on capital to subsidize rail operations--this was
actually written into the legislation authorizing rail privatization
in 1993 and it has since been heavily criticized since Railtrack has
shown more interest in developing its property than in maintaining the
rail network);

From: argatlam@my-deja.com

Subject: Re: OT: US Propaganda

Newsgroups: misc.transport.road

Date: 24 Oct 2001 07:43:07 -0700

I saw that in the print edition of the 'Guardian' yesterday and,

frankly, anything Mr. Monbiot says has to be taken with MANY grains of

salt. He gets most of his facts straight, but has an unsettling habit

of spinning paranoid conjectures out of them. For example, earlier

this year he observed that most of the British railways which were

decommissioned in the 1960's (when the Beeching report, 'Reshaping

British Railways', was implemented) were put beyond use by permitting

housing development to take place across the decommissioned lines,

tearing down railway bridges, etc. He surmised, on the basis of this,

that there must have been some kind of a sinister scheme to tear down

the railways and replace them with motorways.

The reality was more like this: (1) the railways have always been

more or less cash-strapped since the 1920's, and often selling off

property was the only way to raise cash (it was not until recently

that the railways won the right to DEVELOP their own property, so they

could use the income on capital to subsidize rail operations--this was

actually written into the legislation authorizing rail privatization

in 1993 and it has since been heavily criticized since Railtrack has

shown more interest in developing its property than in maintaining the

rail network); (2) in Britain it is extremely difficult to obtain

planning consent to build on green fields--railway land counts as

"brownfield" land, for which it is much easier to get permission to

develop, and as much of it passes through countryside, dismantled

railway lines are very attractive nuclei for country-town

developments; and (3) local councils have the option to control

development and to create subsidized rail service through

partnerships, so in spite of the political and economic disincentives,

many have exercised it to keep dismantled lines clear in anticipation

of future restoration of service--for example, the line between Oxford

and Cambridge via Bletchley is being restored essentially on its old

alignment, since Oxfordshire C.C. and its partners were wise enough to

keep it free.

Monbiot has positioned himself as a spokesman and intellectual

luminary for a loose coalition of environmentalists, pacifists, and

protesters of corporatization, globalization, and new roads, who have

shown (at the Newbury Bypass protest, May Day riots, Manchester

airport third runway dig-in, Twyford Down reconstruction, etc.) that

they are prepared to resort to disinformation, street theatre, and

sometimes even outright terrorism to achieve their political aims. I

don't reject their ideologies out of hand or spend my time attempting

to devise factual and rational rebuttals to them, but they are

fundamentally ideologues rather than pragmatists, and in my experience

their concern for human welfare is weak and hypocritical at best.

So, in general, I would counsel readers of Mr. Monbiot not to believe

anything he says unless they are personally satisfied the facts he

quotes are correct and that his interpretations of them are

reasonable. In my experience, the former is true but the latter most

definitely is not.

Posted by dc at October 27, 2001 05:11 PM