Double standards

When the railways were first privatised, John Major tried to minimise the political impact of what was a broadly unpopular decision by limiting fare rises to 1 base point below the rate of inflation (i.e. if inflation was 3%, fare increases would be 2%).  With Labour coming to power in 1997 with the country at their feet and with a desire to milk any cash cows going, fiddled the legislation to mean fare rises would be a maximum of 1 base point above the rate of inflation across the entire pricing system. Thus off-peak travellers saw little change but rush hour commuters were hammered.  Then the Coalition had the bright idea of limiting ticket hikes to 3 bases points above the rate of inflation before a severe backlash against the money-grubbing Treasury.  This is the Treasury, let us not forget, who insisted on splitting the rail track operator from the rolling stocks operators and divvied up itty-bitty franchises rather than a self-sufficient, say, Big Four (as John Major wanted), all in a bid for the Sir Humphreys to remain in control.  Despite certain advances, this is why rail privatisation was so disastrous and Gordon Brown made things worse.
The job of government apparently was to wean the train companies off the teat of public subsidy, eating the solid food of commuter wages.  Every time the passenger was pumped for more like a mafioso racketeering game, the faceless monotone response was 'improvements need to be paid for and the taxpayer must not suffer the burden'.  It was a statement not to be brooked - travellers were told, in effect, to suck it up.  The dullness of intellect by those who propounded this meant they never realised or never cared that railway commuters were also taxpayers.  So it meant they got hit from both sides of the Whitehall divide.
When it comes to the roads however, it is a completely different matter.  Were the roads treated in the same fashion as railways, then instead of a few toll roads for convenience, the entire network of roads down to country lanes would be subject to tolls.  As part of George Osborne's Autumn Statement, £15bn worth of new road schemes across the country.  But what about the burden to the taxpayer?  My use of the roads is very limited.  If road users can complain about the financing of the railways, the direction of travel should be both ways.
It was while campaigning to be president that Dwight Eisenhower recognised the deteriorating road infrastructure would harm the American economy and embarked on upgrades (something that is needed again).  Roads are an essential artery to allow the economy to continue unimpeded.  But railways also have a crucial boosting effect.  Drivers may complain about road tax, insurance, maintenance, petrol and parking fees and though four of that list may be government mandated, they are essentially commercial operations.  Though drivers may gripe about tax on petrol, the price rises are nothing like rail commuters have to endure (and the government has been known to scale back pricing schemes).  From the public purse, motorists have, by and large, a free lunch.  This fundamental imbalance between the modes of transport has existed for a long time and the £15bn announcement today just rubs that in to the wound.