Because both are government controlled. The railway companies are private but the infrastructure itself is at least government controlled if not government owned (depending on the level of privatisation in the UK - this privatisation is directed from Brussels). I am Dutch and working for the railways but not completely up to date on the current status in the UK. Brussels has given all EC countries a number of years to split up their railway companies into passenger transport, infrastructure, design, etc. (This will bring about more competition and thus lower prices -- they say, let's wait and see!)
To answer your question the state would be paying the state if the trains had to pay road taxes. Nice he, such a serious answer?
2006-07-05 06:32:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by fkvdmark 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
well for 1 they just cross a road they dont drive down the road and if they paid a road tax then our tax mony would go to fix there tarcks and right of way trust me they make enough money to do it them selves . but they dont drive on the roads they just cross it so they dont have to pay any road tax
2006-07-05 07:24:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by rjm_333 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
cars travel over the rails at these crossings, but they don't pay a tax to the rail companies, so why should the train people pay?
2006-07-05 06:34:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by mike-from-spain 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Railways mantain by themselves the rail lines, but only a fraction of highways are payed by users, they have a high subsidy and most of them are not profitable.
2006-07-05 07:04:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by tgva325 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If they did it would come out of tax-payers money anyway.
Like most of the upkeep on the railways.
2006-07-05 06:24:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by Norman Bates 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
..I think you'll find that it's the roads (ie. motor vehicles) that travel over the railway lines.....
2006-07-05 06:25:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by creviazuk 6
·
0⤊
0⤋