> Is someone offering to pay? The reason we do not have a Pennsy anymore is that they went bankrupt, partly because they had to compete with subsidized highway

> Is someone offering to pay? The reason we do not have a Pennsy anymore is that they went bankrupt, partly because they had to compete with subsidized highways and airports (there are various other reasons). I would say more than partially. Large portions of their revenue suddenly shifted to use those subsidized highways and airports. Sudden shocks are hard, even for a company doing financially well like the Pennsy was until the last few years. My point is more that this technology has largely existed for the past 60 years. Even implemented slowly over the last 30 years, that time would have left us with a system that had most of the benefits of PTC. > The fact is that PTC is an expensive way to increase the safety of one of the safest ways people can travel. Automobiles are far more dangerous. If the billions of dollars being spent on PTC were instead used to expand passenger service (and take cars off the road) we would almost certainly save more lives. No argument. I hate cars. Car culture is toxic and causes so many problems. > Also keep in mind that PTC solves just one of many ways that train wrecks can occur. It is not hard to find examples of other recent fatal incidents that PTC would have done nothing to prevent: Just because a safety feature wouldn't prevent every accident doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. The question is how much of a benefit does it bring?