5 ms·

I think that "nationalizing" the rail lines would be in the best interest of the country. Passenger rail will otherwise always take a back seat to freight. Ima

I think that "nationalizing" the rail lines would be in the best interest of the country. Passenger rail will otherwise always take a back seat to freight. Imagine taking, say, $50B that gets dumped into the quagmire that is Afghanistan and using that instead to modernize and expand the current rail system so that it can handle even more freight as well as performant passenger service.

sigstoat 8y ago
> Passenger rail will otherwise always take a back seat to freight. moving all the freight to something less efficient would 1) have significant environmental impacts and 2) raise the cost of all consumer goods, disproportionally harming the poor.
- pstuart 8y ago
  No, freight gets to use the existing rails. We just invest in expanding capacity on the existing right of ways (with a minimum of eminent domain to widen when possible).
kposehn 8y ago
Uh, no. The US freight rail network is the most efficient in the world for ton/mile/dollars. It crushes long-haul trucks for bulk/unit loads, manifest, intermodal...the list goes on. It is in no need of nationalizing, and if you did that you'd end up with a vastly slower network built for something entirely different than what you're talking about. Build a totally new network on better alignments/grades with higher speeds for passengers only. Leave the freight railroads to their work.
- pstuart 8y ago
  My original point: "expand the current rail system so that it can handle even more freight as well as performant passenger service." Right of ways are challenging. It's not about pushing freight off of existing lines, it's about investing in the rails we have now so that capacity and speed can be enhanced.
  - kposehn 8y ago
    > My original point: "expand the current rail system so that it can handle even more freight as well as performant passenger service My own point: the freight rail system is optimized for freight. Nationalizing it does no good. Build a totally separate passenger rail network with different loading gauges, requirements and signaling that is designed for passenger trains.
    - pstuart 8y ago
      Good luck getting the land for that.
the1pato 8y ago
But the rail lines are private in Japan...
- pstuart 8y ago
  The US is not Japan.
protomyth 8y ago
> I think that "nationalizing" the rail lines would be in the best interest of the country. Passenger rail will otherwise always take a back seat to freight. Yes, it takes a back seat to freight and it should. Freight is very important to the US and a disruption of our freight system will have some seriously nasty effects. The current rail system serves this country quite well. It might go unnoticed by most people, but its important. Frankly, the under appreciation of how good the US logistic system (rail, truck, air, vessel, and barge) is a real shame.
- pstuart 8y ago
  You also could have cited this part: > expand the current rail system so that it can handle even more freight as well as performant passenger service. I never suggested sacrificing freight traffic in any way, actually the opposite.
  - protomyth 8y ago
    That’s the problem. What’s good for freight is bad for passengers and good passenger lines are horrible for freight. Even the model is different (B2B versus B2C). The mixing is a big problem and any disruption in the current network would affect a lot of people. The private freight carriers are doing a fine job.
    - pstuart 8y ago
      I'm just taking an armchair analysis here, as this is a subject that has interested me for a while. Things like Positive Train Control (which is erratically and incompletely implemented), investing in parallel tracks to allow more interleaving of service and in more rigorous (but sensible and properly funded) safety measure are all relatively modest investments that could put a lot more cars on the rails. > The private freight carriers are doing a fine job Yes they are, for freight and they have zero incentive to share. If the costs for making it painless for them to share are mitigated, then everybody wins. My original point is we're flushing money down the toilet in foreign lands and if it was redirected into an investment like this would be money better spent. We're never going to have proper high speed rail, but at least we could have medium speed rail...
sneakernets 8y ago
I'd go a step further: Nationalize the oil and transportation companies and re-tool them for High-Speed rail as reparations for the damage they willingly inflicted to this country. They deserve it for encouraging the urban sprawl that created this mess in the first place.
- fipple 8y ago
  Why not just nationalize everything? Lol.
  - sneakernets 8y ago
    That's the spirit!
- partiallypro 8y ago
  This is how you quickly become a 3rd world country

sigstoat 8y ago

> Passenger rail will otherwise always take a back seat to freight. moving all the freight to something less efficient would 1) have significant environmental impacts and 2) raise the cost of all consumer goods, disproportionally harming the poor.

pstuart 8y ago
No, freight gets to use the existing rails. We just invest in expanding capacity on the existing right of ways (with a minimum of eminent domain to widen when possible).

kposehn 8y ago

Uh, no. The US freight rail network is the most efficient in the world for ton/mile/dollars. It crushes long-haul trucks for bulk/unit loads, manifest, intermodal...the list goes on. It is in no need of nationalizing, and if you did that you'd end up with a vastly slower network built for something entirely different than what you're talking about. Build a totally new network on better alignments/grades with higher speeds for passengers only. Leave the freight railroads to their work.

pstuart 8y ago
My original point: "expand the current rail system so that it can handle even more freight as well as performant passenger service." Right of ways are challenging. It's not about pushing freight off of existing lines, it's about investing in the rails we have now so that capacity and speed can be enhanced.
- kposehn 8y ago
  > My original point: "expand the current rail system so that it can handle even more freight as well as performant passenger service My own point: the freight rail system is optimized for freight. Nationalizing it does no good. Build a totally separate passenger rail network with different loading gauges, requirements and signaling that is designed for passenger trains.
  - pstuart 8y ago
    Good luck getting the land for that.

the1pato 8y ago

But the rail lines are private in Japan...

pstuart 8y ago
The US is not Japan.

protomyth 8y ago

> I think that "nationalizing" the rail lines would be in the best interest of the country. Passenger rail will otherwise always take a back seat to freight. Yes, it takes a back seat to freight and it should. Freight is very important to the US and a disruption of our freight system will have some seriously nasty effects. The current rail system serves this country quite well. It might go unnoticed by most people, but its important. Frankly, the under appreciation of how good the US logistic system (rail, truck, air, vessel, and barge) is a real shame.

pstuart 8y ago
You also could have cited this part: > expand the current rail system so that it can handle even more freight as well as performant passenger service. I never suggested sacrificing freight traffic in any way, actually the opposite.
- protomyth 8y ago
  That’s the problem. What’s good for freight is bad for passengers and good passenger lines are horrible for freight. Even the model is different (B2B versus B2C). The mixing is a big problem and any disruption in the current network would affect a lot of people. The private freight carriers are doing a fine job.
  - pstuart 8y ago
    I'm just taking an armchair analysis here, as this is a subject that has interested me for a while. Things like Positive Train Control (which is erratically and incompletely implemented), investing in parallel tracks to allow more interleaving of service and in more rigorous (but sensible and properly funded) safety measure are all relatively modest investments that could put a lot more cars on the rails. > The private freight carriers are doing a fine job Yes they are, for freight and they have zero incentive to share. If the costs for making it painless for them to share are mitigated, then everybody wins. My original point is we're flushing money down the toilet in foreign lands and if it was redirected into an investment like this would be money better spent. We're never going to have proper high speed rail, but at least we could have medium speed rail...

sneakernets 8y ago

I'd go a step further: Nationalize the oil and transportation companies and re-tool them for High-Speed rail as reparations for the damage they willingly inflicted to this country. They deserve it for encouraging the urban sprawl that created this mess in the first place.

fipple 8y ago
Why not just nationalize everything? Lol.
- sneakernets 8y ago
  That's the spirit!
partiallypro 8y ago
This is how you quickly become a 3rd world country