The present government assumes an 'integrated transport policy' is required because integration will not be achieved by market forces. Its policies have an interventionalist bias. John Hibbs concludes that transport should not be regarded as 'something different' but as an industry best left alone to serve the public.

The debate on rail privatisation often seems to focus on very narrow issues. Those on both sides of the argument seem to be able to employ a mass of statistics to prove their point. Proponents of privatisation suggest, with some credibility, that all was reasonably well with the privatised railways until the Hatfield disaster. Opponents point to spiralling costs since privatisation. The authors of this monograph examine privatisation in the context of the long history of continual government intervention. The government imposed upon the industry a particular structure - separation of track and wheel. It also wrapped it up in increasing amounts of regulation. After examining the history of government intervention in the railways and the privatisation process, the authors of this monograph then examine the future of railway policy. Should the industry be allowed to evolve its own structure - remerging the ownership of track and wheel if it wishes? What aspects of a railway should be regulated? Who should own the various parts of the infrastructure? This monograph is essential reading for all with an interest in railway policy and the process of privatisation.

This Hobart Paper addresses one of the great economic and social problems of our time: the suboptimal allocation of resources that has arisen from the incompatible financial, fiscal and regulatory regimes for the various modes of inland transport. In order to simplify the argument, it concentrates on the movement of people, whose demand for access to satisfactions gives rise to the derived demand for mobility with with the paper is concerned. The argument rests on the assumption that such satisfactions can only be assessed subjectively and that there is no planning technique which will ensure the provision of the required mobility at a quality and price that will clear the market. Having reviewed the various 'means to mobility', the paper concludes that measures to harmonise their investment, taxation and regulatory regimes so as to create an integrated market form the basis for the only 'national transport policy' that can have either meaning or success.