In  your website you relate to the conflict between global and local effects of transportation, which reminds me about the acute debate between "globalization" and "localization".  I thought this debate in the transportation context was settled by reality about 150 years ago when rail transportation emerged. This emergence caused an economical revolution that encouraged industrialization and mass global production leading many local producers to bankruptcy, shifting wealth from small to large organizations, but in general causing global welfare.

Nigel Replies,
I don't disagree. But I do point out the difference that the railways in their infancy were financed commercially, in contrast with today where much transport in the UK, road and rail is subsidised. I have no objection to free global competition - however, producers should pay their full transport costs. In the UK the state owned road network is subsidised by the taxpayer - in effect running at a loss. As the roads are state owned we citizens are the owners. Reading Part 4, Commercialising the Road Network  you will see I argue our ownership of the roads should be formalised as a proper corporate shareholding for all citizens. We would then take the responsibility for the pricing and management of roads through the Directors we would appoint. The price would therefore become economic and we would receive a dividend on profits instead of the current heavy taxes we have to pay to subsidise the road network. Another benefit of economic pricing will be the balancing of supply and demand, reducing congestion (which in the UK is often appalling) making road journeys far more reliable. At the same time this would change the economic balance to encouraging business to locate more where they are needed. This is not a black and white issue there is a place for all levels of business from very local to global. Economic pricing of transport (only possible if taken out of the hands of  Government and run commercially) will encourage the most appropriate business to evolve to serve the customer.

Corporations are managed in democratic ways similar to governments. Corporation owed by all citizens may suffer shareholders politics and directors abuse the same way as governments.
Government is not a business. It is hard to make profits from state security, welfare services or fire fighting.
Nigel Replies
Good arguement to take roads away from Government, then roads can make a profit and provide wealth for citizens instead of being a burden on the taxpayer.

Some roads are built to afford access to small communities without economical justifications
Nigel Replies
Roads to small communities are a tiny fraction of the cost of main roads, typically £0.6million per km compared with £5.9million per km for motorways. The maintenance of these roads are so tiny in comparison with major roads that the current method of finacing roads in the UK means the remote rural resident pays disproportionately more tax in relation to the costs they impose on the road network in effect cross subsidising the urban or inter urban road user. Economic pricing of roads following their commercialisation would be a major benefit to small communities.
 
Another benefit of economic pricing will be the balancing of supply and demand, reducing congestion (which in the UK is often appalling making road journeys far more reliable.

It is a good idea if not faced political and legal problems.
Nigel Replies
Get the politicians out of the equation by transfering ownership of roads directly to citizen shareholders.
At the same time this would change the economic balance to encouraging business to locate more where they are needed.
This is a kind of political problem.
Where business locates is entirely up to the business - there should be no political interference. If transport continues to be subsidised - business will tend to continue to locate in the dispersed pattern familier towards the end of the 20th century requiring longer journeys to transport goods, employees and customers. Economically priced transport, businesses will tend to locate in the optimum location requiring less transport for their goods - more convenient for customers and employees. e.g. There may be an increase in jobs factories and shops in my home town so that we can walk for our needs again instead of having to drive to the larger neighbouring towns.
This is not a black and white issue there is a place for all levels of business from very local to global. Economic pricing of transport (only possible if taken out of the hands of Government and run commercially) will encourage the most appropriate business to evolve to serve the customer.

I am amused with the idea that the burden to be responsible for the roads will be delegated by English government to, lets say, the four large car manufacturers in England. Each one will be responsible to one of four parallel routes. Than when you buy a car you buy a certain level of competing infrastructure. When it happens resources will be shifted from redundant gimmicks to solve real problems.
Nigel Replies;
People made similar comments prior to the UK privatisations of  industries such as telecommunications and energy supply. However if you read Part 4, Commercialising the Road Network you will see how I propose to transfer ownership of the roads directly to we citizens - for the benefit of citizens. If some citizens choose to sell their shares to car manufacturers or anyone else that will be entirely a matter for them. However - once commercial the focus of road management will be to make a profit by serving their customers - which will be a great improvement on Government management with the focus on controlling use of public money and pleasing the pressure groups that shout the loudest.