This morning's commute and other commuting stories

The word 'subsidy' is in itself tendentious. Public transport is a public service which ought to be funded from public money. If it is publicly run, it requires less public investment than if it is privatised because private interests are kept at bay.

(There is still a danger, as eventually happened to London Transport, for instance, if a public company/corporation relies on private contractors of various kinds, e.g. for rolling stock, that the suppliers can exploit the 'captive market' (not sure if that's the right word) and costs will rise, but this is lessened the more the corporation does itself (which London Transport was very good at for a while), but it's not an insurmountable problem.)

The argument that harnessing the allegedly greater dynamic and vitality of private interests will reap benefits has hardly ever been borne out in practice.

Because privatisation.

Utilities and infrastructure (British Rail, Royal Mail, British Telecom etc...) have some very profitable bits (main line commuter bits, parcel post in big cities, city telephone networks), and some very, very expensive loss makers (off peak trains, telephone lines in the wilds of Northern Scotland, sending a letter to the Orkneys etc..)

Whichever government sells off the family silver, only the profitable stuff is wanted - any sensible purchaser would either not buy the unprofitable bits, or shut it down when they got hold of it.

Government is obliged (if not actually mandated) to ensure that the provinces & outlying services are still provided, so they sweeten the deal & pay subsidies / give tax breaks.