4 ms·
BBC covered a similar situation in Britain. One of the arguments for keeping them running: inactive lines quickly fall in to disrepair (physically or legally/pr
by facetube 11y ago
BBC covered a similar situation in Britain. One of the arguments for keeping them running: inactive lines quickly fall in to disrepair (physically or legally/procedurally), which could actually end up costing more, assuming demand is projected to increase and the line would have to be reopened.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150723-why-britain-has-secret-ghost-trains http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150723-why-britain-has-sec...
- jamessb 11y agoAlso, the cost of actually closing a station is not negligible. From the same article: Closing down a line is cumbersome. There must first be a transport appraisal analysing the effect of a closure on passengers, the environment and the economy. The proposal is submitted to the Department of Transport and at that point its details must be published in the press, six months ahead of the closure. Then comes a 12-week consultation period, during which time anyone is welcome to protest; public hearings are sometimes held, especially if the closure is controversial. Then, finally, the plans are submitted to the Office of Rail and Road, who decide if the line closes. As a result it often costs less – in terms of time, paperwork and taxpayers’ money – to keep a line running at a bare minimum.
- m-i-l 11y agoIndeed. There was a discussion about these on HN last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9936028 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9936028 .